Re: Oracle Myths

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

> "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?
>
> Having more actuators will always be a Good Thing[tm], however, as I
> was recently corrected! <g>, with RAID and their monster caches (like
> EMC's) and that changes things a bit.
>
> Looking at the HP TPC-C with Oracle 9i, what they did was create
> monster stripes with RAID 1 as the back-end. I didn't bother checking
> how much cache were on the arrays but my dollar would say they were
> stacked.
>
> Given JBOD, I'd want drives as small as possible ... the analogy I use
> is:
>
> Is it quicker to load/unload a bus via one door? Or to load the same
> set of people into two seater cars? <g>
> --
> Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
> mailto:pablo_at_hpdbe.com
> http://www.hpdbe.com
> Available for short-term and long-term contracts

On the face of it I can't disagree. But then I couldn't disagree initially with a number of things pointed out as myths.

Has anyone actually put this to the test and gathered the numbers ... or is this unsubstantiated theory?

The quest continues.

Daniel Morgan Received on Mon May 20 2002 - 18:33:47 CDT