Re: Appropriate dirve size for Oracle DB

"edipko01" <edipko01_at_home.com> wrote in message news:3A70BDE1.9010906_at_home.com...
> I understand and agree with everything below, but still have a similar
> question.
>
> Say you need 36gig of space and only have one scsi channel(40Mbits/s),
> using 4-9gig drives gives you what you need for capacity and max
> throughput (4-10Mbit/s drives = 40Mbits/sec).

4 current generation SCSI drives (even 7200rpm - ie Quantum Atlas V) would be limited by a 40Mbit SCSI bus.
They should be able to average better than 20Mbits/s each on many read operations
Look for a U-160 controller or a multichannel U-80 at a minimum.

> My question is, since the price difference between 9gig and 18gig drives
> was only around $50ea., is there any performance (or other) problem
> using 4-18gig drives? Throughput remains the same up to 72gig now.

$50 is low for a difference. Make sure you are comparing drives from the exact same series,
4 x 18 GB will generally give you better performance than 4 x 9Gb (of the same drive series) in the same setting because the 18GB drives will average a faster transfer rate due to a higher % of the data being stored on the beginning (faster) part of the disk platters.

> >
> > This is one of those bizarre mysteries to me .. why do HD companies
> > discontinue reasonably-sized drives (4.3G and 9G come to mind) and think
> > "Oh, everyone wants our new 2347TB UltraMegaDrive[tm]! Think of how
> > much they can put on it!". This seems to be a fairly universal (and
> > amazingly stupid) mode of thinking. Other than the A/V industry, I'm
> > having trouble coming up with a real, valid use of these monster drives
> > where they actually benefit any application.

If they can sell a 9GB SCSI drive for $230, a 4GB drive would probably sell for $180 if they manufactured one.
Which would you buy? Received on Fri Jan 26 2001 - 10:50:25 CST