Then again, whatever the answer (cars vs. bus), I suspect that it applies to
most RDBMS systems and is not Oracle-specific. My $ would be on cars.
"Pablo Sanchez" <pablo_at_dev.null> wrote in message
news:3ce979f1$1_1_at_news.teranews.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?
>
> 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
>
>
Received on Tue May 21 2002 - 06:44:19 CDT
