| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: I/O Contention Oracle binaries, DB File Placement on 4 mount points
Thanks for the response, Paul.
I left out some info - the production db server is setup for HA. The db server box (hosting the Oracle binaries) is completely mirrored by a backup box. In case of failure in the primary box, HA fails over to the backup box. One of the mount points for Oracle is on this server with HA (the mount point with the Oracle binaries). All other mount points are (one way or another) on the 9 disk data array. My SA would like to keep one of the 9 disks there as a spare disk, thus leaving 8 disks. The 9 disk array has 2 controllers. I want to insist on getting an additional drive for archived redo logfiles and hot backup datafiles – meaning that for my drives for backup are in question.
I have a concern for keeping DATA and INDEX on 2 separate logical volumes so that I know I can get parallel reads of those volumes. So if I take the 2 (3 disk) RAID5 mount points into one RAID5 mount point, I end up putting DATA and INDEX on that one mount point.
I also think I should keep RBS and TEMP tablespaces on a drive separate from DATA and INDEX.
Mount points as per my original plan:
/u01 1 disk (mirrored via HA) – Oracle binaries, system, temp, rbs users, tools tablespaces, controlfile copy
/u02 2 disks in RAID1 volume – online redo logs
/u03 3 disks in RAID5 volume – DATA, controlfile copy
/u04 3 disks in RAID5 volume – INDEX, controlfile copy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Alternative Configuration 1:
/u01 1 disk (mirrored via HA) – Oracle binaries, controlfile copy
/u02 (disk array) 2 disks in RAID1 volume – online redo logs
/u03 (disk array) 2 disks in RAID1 volume - DATA, controlfile copy
/u04 (disk array) 2 disks in RAID1 volume – INDEX, controlfile copy
/u05 (disk array) 2 disks in RAID1 volume - system, temp, rbs users, tools tablespaces – and more DATA datafiles as the space is needed for data.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Alternative Configuration 2:
/u01 1 disk (mirrored via HA) – Oracle binaries, system, temp, rbs users, tools tablespaces, controlfile copy
/u02 (disk array) 2 disks in RAID1 volume – online redo logs
/u03 (disk array) 6 disks in RAID5 volume - DATA, INDEX,
controlfile copy ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“3 drive RAID 5 volumes are useless.” - Why is that ? My reason for going with 2 RAID5 volumes (each of 3 drive) is getting more space out of the drives and the separation of volumes for DATA and INDEX.
What is “JBOD single drive” ?
Thanks in advance.
Paul Drake <paledHOWMUCHSPAMCANYOUEAT_at_home.com> wrote in message news:<3BABAE30.3040904_at_home.com>...
> 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 Sat Sep 22 2001 - 20:24:02 CDT
 |
 |