Re: Mixed raw and Ufs partitions

I do have Veritas, but unfortunately not for this system, hence the "plain" raw partition idea. I don't see too much of a loss in flexibility, since the 4.2G drive would be dedicated to Oracle and the 9.0G is more than enough for everything else.

I planned to allocate more than enough for every partition, and since my system is not too heavily used, I didn't forsee much of a problem.

I guess, from what I've read here the goal is to put the small redo logs on separate drives, so that the switching will be optimized.

Thanks for the response.

-Dirk

Spencer wrote:
>
> with only two drives, your goal should be to distribute the i/o as evenly
> as possible between them. i'm thinking that you're not going to see
> much of an increase in performance by moving to raw partitions, but
> you are certainly going to lose a lot of flexibility. i wouldn't recommend
> using raw partitions unless you've got a logical volume manager that
> will allow you to create raw partitions that are appropriately sized.
>
> "Dirk Kiehne" <dirk_at_liberate.com> wrote in message
> news:3A721625.7CECEAC1_at_liberate.com...
> > A question for the experts,
> >
> > I have a development environment:
> >
> > Solaris 8
> > Oracle 8.1.7
> > Our servers interacting with Oracle
> > Two internal SCSI HDs (4.2G and 9.0G)
> >
> > I'm considering switching my Boot Drive (4.2G)
> > to the (9.0G) and installing Oracle on the (4.2G)
> > with Oracle running in raw partions.
> >
> > From my experience installing OPS into Veritas
> > logical volumes on another machine, I would need
> > 13 partitions:
> >
> > system
> > user
> > temp
> > rbs
> > indx
> > tools
> > drsys
> > control1
> > control2
> > redo1_1
> > redo2_2
> > redo2_1
> > redo2_2
> >
> > but I have only potentially 11 available:
> >
> > 4 on the "new" (9.0G): after using /, swap, backup and /liberate
> > 7 on the (4.2G): after using backup
> >
> > Could someone recommend which HD I should put them on and
> > which could reside on Ufs without affecting performance??
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > -Dirk
> >
Received on Tue Jan 30 2001 - 14:28:29 CST