Re: Databse File layout on only 4 drives Ideas?

"David Platt" <david-platt_at_cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:AepY9.54719$L47.8070994_at_read2.cgocable.net...
> I would argue that one drive should be dedicated to archive desitination -
> don't want to be sharing that if we lose a disk.
>
> I am quite curious as to why a couple of you have written off the idea of
> splitting data and index across drives. This is a practise that I have
> followed for a while and I am wondering why it is being written off so
> quickly

Because (here goes!) there is no intrinsic performance benefit to be gained by housing indexes and tables separately. That would only be a possibility if indexes and tables were read and written simultaneously, thus introducing a contention issue, but they aren't. Table and index reads are serialised, and writes are at the mercy of the LRU list and DBWR's own flushing schedule.

They *might* contend, of course. But they might not. In the absence of a suitable number of hard disks, and in pursuit of the simplest rule for the most common situations, then index and table separation is a waste of time.

But it needs monitoring on a segment-by-segment basis to find the exceptions.

Regards
HJR Received on Tue Jan 28 2003 - 00:19:29 CST