Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: separate data/inidex

Re: separate data/inidex

From: Howard J. Rogers <dba_at_hjrdba.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:35:11 +1000
Message-ID: <aa463k$5pd$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>


> I don't have it here at the office. But someone had the 8.0 version of
their
> book and they use the following as an example in that one:
>
> Disk Weight Contents
> 1 Oracle Software
> 2 35 System, Control file 1
> 3 40 RBS
> 4 100 DATA
> 5 33 INDEXES
> 6 9 TEMP
> 7 3 TOOLS
> 8 40+ REDO LOGS
> 9 40+ APPLICATION & ARCHIVED REDO
>
> It is not hard, from the above, for a reasonable person to say ... I'm not
> putting anything on the same physical disks holding my indexes.

Why? Can't you add 35+33+9+3 and still come in at much less than 100?

So what I'm really saying is: what do those weights mean? I'm sure they're not kilogrammes, but apart from that, they seem pretty meaningless. Are they trying to say that writes and reads from DATA are 3 times more frequent than from INDEXES? Or 3 times as expensive? Some seem peculiarly precise: 9 for TEMP, for example, and not, say, 5 or 10.

>Is the above
> table reasonably accurate and you disagree with the conclusion?

I can't disagree with it until I know what it actually means. That means knowing how they arrived at those numbers, and what significance they are invested with in their text. For which I have to get hold of a copy of their book.

Regards
HJR
>Or is the above
> table inaccurate in which case I invite you to provide values you think
better
> reflect the real world.
>
> Also, to what extent is this discussion predicated on having RAID and
Veritas or
> other disk striping as opposed to raw devices?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Daniel Morgan
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 12:35:11 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US