Re: Two sanity checks

I'll weigh in on this one.

1. Partition. Any time you have this much data ... throwing it together makes no sense. And it isn't like Oracle charges you more if you create partitions.
2. I don't like, or trust, hardware solutions that claim to spread out I/O across disk arrays. I definitely prefer the ability to put tablespaces and datafiles where I want them (if they are striped fine but I still want control) and to put redo logs on a RAW device.

Daniel Morgan

Dusan Bolek wrote:

> First One:
>
> There is a need for storing up to one terabyte of audit informations
> (not Oracle internal audit, just general one). Proposal is to use one
> single non-partitioned table with two indexes. One is on date and the
> second one is on system indentifier which is varchar2(256). Looks to
> me like a pretty crappy design and performance will be terrible.
>
> Second One:
>
> Some people says that OFSA (Oracle Flexible Storage Architecture) is
> obsolete, because new modern storages like SAN disk arrays with
> stripping, caching technologies etc. can spread I/O load with no
> support from special data placing.
> That sounds to me like (sorry for that word) a bullshit, because disk
> I/O is still very slow (comparing to memory, interfaces etc.) and
> having everything in one big mess can't bring the same performance as
> properly distributed files (OFSA) even with help of all stripes and
> caches in the universe.
>
> P.S. I love external consultants, especially from world-wide companies
> with all certifications and big bills.
> --
> _________________________________________
>
> Dusan Bolek, Ing.
> Oracle team leader
>
> Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
> can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
> this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
> proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
> email.
Received on Thu Feb 07 2002 - 14:12:19 CST