Re: Physical Layout of disk to use Oracle

Hari Om wrote:

> Thanks Adon.
>
> You said: "Underutilized disk SYSTEM, ARCHIVE and
> INDEX tablespaces, probable hotspot on ROLLBACK, possibly over
> utilized DATA."
>
> could you please elaborate on this....? I am thinking of implementing
> RAID 5 for my DB which would have 6 disk - each 36GB.do I still need
> to consider SAME....? Kindly elaborate. I read SAME Paper @ OTN Web
> site but it seems it does what RAID 5 does....THANKS!
>
>
> Also, MK in his/her reply mentioned that to have DATA and INDEX on
> same TABLESPACE......I don't think so he/she is right on
> this....correct me on this if I am wrong.
>
> MILLION Thanks!
>

Stripe and mirror everything does *not* mean 'go RAID5'. Raid 5 for redo logs is an extremely bad idea, though for data files it probably won't kill you.

Also, MK was perfectly correct. Check Google for a thread called 'Oracle Myths' many months ago, when the issue was done to death. There's an administrative convenience to separating tables and indexes, but generally no performance benefit.

If you, however, are going RAID 5, then MK is even more perfectly correct: who cares about separating things out into separate tablespaces when everything gets striped across disks anyway, and you have no say about what lands up physically adjacent to anything else?

HJR Received on Tue Sep 16 2003 - 15:30:41 CDT