Re: Basic question on RAID array / Tablespace configuration.

"TR" <tman_at_tman.dnsalias.com> wrote in message news:6t%Q8.26123$XF6.3372526731_at_newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> Have an approx 50 GB database (that is data+indexes) that will be used for
> aggregation queries and other OLAP type of stuff. E.g. write performance
> next to irrelevant, massive sequential reads from index and tables, I
guess
> not a whole lot of probe-type random reads. Beware some of the queries do
> heavy writes to TEMP space.
>
> Hardware available is 8 80GB drives. Loss of data in the event of a drive
> loss is of very little concern.
>
> Thoughts?:
>
> -> Stripe (RAID0) all 8 drives, then logically partition into Data, Index,
> Temp, etc.
> -> Stripe (RAID0) 3 drives for Data, 3drives for Index, 2 for Temp. E.g.
> ensure that index and data are on separate physical devices.

You've not been reading recent threads here, have you?

There is precisely zero benefit in separating tables from their indexes for performance reasons. Both are segments. Just like Table A and Table B are both segments. Separate A from B by all means, but unless you're consistent, there's no point in separating a table from its index.

Except for ease of management. Which I don't think you're even going to obtain in a RAID environment.

TEMP, yes. Maybe. Rollback, yes, maybe. But not tables and indexes.

> -> Any better configurations?
>

I'd be going for 3 for data+indexes. 3 for rollback. 2 for temp. Just my thoughts.

Regards
HJR
> Thanks,
> TR.
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Jun 22 2002 - 09:33:46 CDT