Re: Oracle Myths

From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:10:46 +0100
Message-ID: <3ce95849$0$234$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>

"Daniel Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3CE953FE.A7538D88_at_exesolutions.com...
> Down below in another thread TurkBear wrote: "IMHO, the size does not
matter"
> with reference to disk size.
>
> And this reminded me of another common bit of "wisdom?" with respect to
Oracle I
> thought I would throw into the mythology pot.
>
> For many years I was told that Oracle likes lots of small disks. That the
ideal
> Oracle system was 100 2GB drives rather than 10 20GB drives. I haven't
heard
> this repeated in awhile. It was only about 5 years ago I remember a
SysAdmin
> whining that he could no longer get 4GB drives and would have to move
Oracle to
> 9GB or 18GB drives.
>
> Any commments? Myth or wisdom?

I haven't thought this through yet - let alone tested it but ISTM that there is wisdom in this. A tablespace striped (and mirrored) across 100 spindles would I imagine perform better than one striped across ten. My only comment would be that I rather suspect a law of diminishing returns to be in action here as well.

Niall

who has also whinged about the lack of 4gb drives but had in mind (particularly) 50MB redo logs. Received on Mon May 20 2002 - 15:10:46 CDT