Comments embedded
Regards
HJR
--
Resources for OracleT: www.geocities.com/howardjr2000
=========================================
"Thanassis Stathopoulos" <thstath_at_attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9qs5un$4lc$1_at_usenet.otenet.gr...
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to determine the best arrangement for setting up the disk
> subsystem on a Win2k/Oracle 8i EE configuration. The db will see a 50/50
mix
> of OLTP and batch processing/reporting usage. Emphasis is on making the
OLTP
> side perform. The system is a dual PIII with 2G of RAM, a dual-channel
RAID
> controller with 256 Mb of cache RAM and 10 fast, 15000 RPM hot-swap disk
> drives. The database size will be in the 10 to 20 Gb range. It is a
> requirement that Oracle must run in ARCHIVE mode.
>
> I am considering the following:
>
> - Allocating three of the pairs in RAID 10 configuration
>
> On it, creating three logical volumes:
>
> - A small one striped at 64k for OS+paging
> - A main one striped at 64k for the main tablespaces (data+index)
> - A support one striped at 256k for rollback and temporary tablespaces
>
> - Allocate the fourth mirrored pair for the archive logs
>
> - Keep the last pair split and have Oracle multiplex the online redo logs
on
> these drives (for extra protection)
>
> Questions based on your experience (knowing there is no easily
transferrable
> answer):
>
> - Is Oracle multiplexing sufficient to continue processing in case of
> failure of one of the online redo disks?
>
Absolutely.
> - Am I really to benefit the most from separating these three I/O types,
or
> should I combine the online and archive redo I/O on a smaller 2-pair,
> 4-drive RAID 10? Note that in this setup each RAID channel is to control
one
> "side" of the arrangement (i.e. three striped pair members, one online
redo
> disk, one archived redo mirror).
>
Archives and redo need to be miles apart from each other. There are
conflicting writes and reads like crazy otherwise. So your original
suggestion was fine, your revision less so.
> - Would you suggest any alternative placement? maybe striping across 4
pairs
> and using the remaining pair for online redo? Assuming 9Gb of 'effective'
db
> space per drive pair in the main RAID 10 array, does it make sense to
> consider using *it* for archive log storage, maybe creating a fourth,
large
> 1 Mb stripe set, dedicated to this?
>
> Thanks for any and all pointers!
> Thanassis
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Oct 20 2001 - 15:19:02 CDT
