What seems to be your query?
spamdump_at_nospam.noway.nohow (Ed Stevens) wrote in message news:<3cc6a5d1.91264551_at_ausnews.austin.ibm.com>...
> Our sever admin just informed me that future server upgrade plans call for the
> use of a SAN. Other than knowing what the acronymn SAN stands for, this is
> totally unknown territory for me. Particulary in light of the current
> discussioni on placement of indexes vs. data tables (separate data/index) I'd
> like to ask if anyone has any knowledge/experience with SAN, and what I should
> be looking to do with it.
>
> Our current standard configuration is an NT server with 'n' number of internally
> mounted disks of the size de jour. Two of the drives are paired into a mirror
> set (Raid-1) and the remainder are placed in a single stripe set (Raid-5).
>
> The server admin carves an 8-gb partition (C:) drive out of the mirror set for
> the OS, and a 4-gb partition ( D:) from the stripe set for the Oracle software.
>
> The remainder of the mirror set is put in a single partition (F:) with dedicated
> subdirectories for things like archive log files, backups, exports, redo.
>
> The remainder of the mirror set is put in a single partition (E:) with dedicated
> subdirectories for control files, rollback, and tablespaces.
>
> This entire arrangement is essentially the compromise we arrived at when we were
> first learning Oracle at 7.3 and our readings of the OFA publications available
> at that time -- primarily Loney's Oracle DBA Handbook, v7.3, and a white paper
> that translated that philosophy to a specifically NT environment.
>
> I would like to take this opportunity to approach this SAN with fresh thinking,
> a 'green field' opportunity, rather than simply migrating current practice. My
> primary goals for new standards would be performance, followed (very, very
> closely) by flexibility and the ability to adjust and adapt.
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 14:14:19 CDT
