Re: file placement and SAN

I have found NAS to be significantly slower, if you don't mind, how about posting the results of a couple of queries:

SELECT * from v$SYSTEM_EVENT WHERE EVENT LIKE '%read%' OR EVENT LIKE '%write%';

SELECT
MIN(AVGIOTIM),MIN(MAXIORTM),MIN(MAXIOWTM),MAX(AVGIOTIM),MAX(MAXIORTM),MAX(MAXIOWTM) FROM V$FILESTAT; Of course this assumes that TIMED_STATISTICS=TRUE. If you are not running with timed_statistics, these queries won't show anything of interest.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:40:54 GMT, Sean M <smckeown_at_earthlink.net> wrote:

>Knut Talman wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone here use Oracle on NAS? How about performance etc.?
>
>We have numerous databases running on NAS. Mostly in the 500-2000 GB
>range. I'm a fan of the NetApp product for Oracle, except when it comes
>to systems where performance is the highest priority (and money is no
>object). Due to it's built-in caching hardware and software, the NetApp
>product probably performs at least as well as regular old
>direct-attached D1000's and the like (that's just a gut feel, I have no
>specific tests to support the claim). I'd be somewhat wary of putting
>files that are accessed sequentially (esp. online redo logs) on the
>filer - NetApp has had some known issues there, though I'm told that
>their latest versions have resolved this problem. Those are the
>negatives. The positives? Great flexibility and ease of management
>(probably it's biggest selling point), nice backup possibilities
>(snapshots are *very* convenient and *fast*), relatively inexpensive,
>good redundancy, fairly simple to learn, fast enough for the majority of
>uses, etc.
>
>Regards,
>Sean
Received on Thu Apr 25 2002 - 11:44:11 CDT