Re: I/O Contention Oracle binaries, DB File Placement on 4 mount points

3 drive RAID 5 volumes are useless.
either drop a drive and keep it as RAID 1, or add a drive and make it RAID10 (or 0+1 if that's all the RAID controller will support). If you need the space, go with a 5 drive RAID 5 volume - at least you get some performance out of it that way. RAID 5 is great for serving up lots of small I/Os of read-only data, as the drives opererate independently.

So - 9 drives:

Production DB server.
OS and binaries go on a RAID 1 volume - Why would you want to do anything else?
Archived redo logs go on a fault tolerant volume. You were going to put system on a JBOD single drive?

Please rethink "production db server".
a single point of failure (system01.dbf) kills production.

9 disks -

2 drives as a RAID 1 volume - OS, swap, binaries 2 drives as JBOD - online redo logs

5 drives as a RAID 5 volume - eveything else -OR-
4 drives as 2 more RAID 1 vols, and
1 drive JBOD for temp

this still sucks, but it will stay up at least.

Paul

David Heitholt wrote:

> I came into a new job and I have a project getting ready for delivery
> to a client. For this project I have a production db server and
> although I would like to add devices for file placement and minimizing
> I/O contention, existing constraints block this. I have 4 mount
> points (4 separate logical volumes) for Oracle. I have a 9 disk array
> divided into 3 mount points (one RAID1 pair for redo logs, 2 RAID5
> volumes each of 3 disks ? one for DATA, one for INDEX) and one disk
> drive holding Oracle binaries. I am planning to put SYSTEM, RBS,
> TEMP, USERS tablespaces on the stand-alone disk drive with the Oracle
> binaries. My question is this: is there a better place to put these 4
> tablespaces given my constraints? The db system is non-intense OLTP.
> The application does Content Management and Puiblishing ? the users
> are content editors. The usage into from the client is vauge. Thanks
> in advance.
>
Received on Fri Sep 21 2001 - 16:16:04 CDT