Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Hitachi StorEdge 9900 Series with Oracle?
<derman_at_optonline.net> wrote in message news:<L2u79.25918$EJ4.680261_at_news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> Where the heck was my head at? In a previous post, I referred to this hardware as Sun
> StorEdge 9900 -- I meant Hitachi, not Sun...
>
> Is anyone out there using a Hitachi StorEdge 9900 series storage system with their Oracle
> database(s)?
>
> We are in the beginning stages of configuring our brand new Hitachi 9970 for use with
> our Oracle database environment and we would very much like to have the benefit of
> other Oracle shops' experience with the 9900 series. If you're using that type of hardware
> and would be willing to entertain some questions about your configuration, please respond.
> We'd be very grateful!
>
Used it (9960 with 3 terra bytes and 8 Gig ram) with my previous ASP production shop. Prior to that, we used EMC 3430 and Compaq array. I have recorded all IO performance for all 3 generations in 2 years time. The Hitachi outperforms the other two. This is not a benchmark, it is production statistics recored every 15 minutes around the clock for 2 years.
Hitachi is significantly better, even with RAID-5+. Versus EMC and Compaq's 0+1.
Also, we did not separate redo from others. It is all mixed. I know a lot of people are strongly against of this, but I really did not see any difference. I think the new technology is making this less an issue now.
One thing very odd is, Hitachi's most optimal stripe size is 56K, I think they use 7 pages of memory stride, so 7 x 8K = 56K. This kind works against your Oracle storage tuning. We did not have time to test 56K vs. a more normal stripe size like 64K on the same frame. The Hitachi guy does not know or care anything about Oracle parameters, but he insists that 56K stripe size is officially recognized as the best performer with no elaboration.
So you may want to test the diff between 56K and 64K striping. Maybe the former would be better because it syncs with memory. Who knows ? Received on Thu Aug 22 2002 - 13:53:26 CDT