Re: Basic question on RAID array / Tablespace configuration.

Thanks Howard.

Some I work with recommends Oracle Performance Tuning 101. What do you think of this one? Which performance tuning book would you recommend?

Thanks.

"Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message news:af385r$j9b$1_at_lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Niemic's book is about as bad as it gets.
>
> He's the guy who also rants on about hit ratios as if they were somehow
> important.
>
> Take a look at google.com for the thread in this group called (I think)
> "Oracle Myths". This is one of 'em for sure.
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
> "Ryan" <rgaffuri_at_cox.net> wrote in message
> news:N28R8.68325$hF5.2890600_at_news2.east.cox.net...
> > Really howard?
> >
> > I could have sworn that I read the the Oracle Performance tuning book by
> > Richard Niemac and others that you should seperate your table extents
from
> > your index extents on separate drives to avoid I/O problems?
> >
> > Did I read this wrong or is this just another bad book?
> >
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message
> > news:af21tj$700$1_at_lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > >
> > > "TR" <tman_at_tman.dnsalias.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6t%Q8.26123$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 Sun Jun 23 2002 - 10:22:55 CDT