Re: Basic question on RAID array / Tablespace configuration.

Not sure, actually. Start with www.ixora.com.au, and follow any links that Steve has put up. Then visit www.oraperf.com, and read any papers that Anjo or Cary have up there. Then read Jonathan Lewis' Practical 8i.

I'd also recommend a visit to Connor's site, where he has a script that lets you 'dial a hit ratio'. That's an essential: first time you show your colleagues that, they'll never look at hit ratios in quite the same way again.

After that, start testing!

Regards
HJR "Ryan" <rgaffuri_at_cox.net> wrote in message news:jJlR8.70984$hF5.3034730_at_news2.east.cox.net...
> Thanks Howard.
>
> Some I work with recommends Oracle Performance Tuning 101. What do you
think
> of this one? Which performance tuning book would you recommend?
>
> Thanks.
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message
> news:af385r$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 - 14:39:24 CDT