Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Physical Layout of disk to use Oracle
Hi Howard,
What about this approach. I have two 18GB hdisk (mirrored with OS installed on it) and SIX 36GB hdisk.
It seems that since SYSTEM and REDO Log files are "NOT GOOD" for RAID 5, I came up with following. Instead of RAIDing (level 5) on 6 hdisk I would RAID only 3 disk and use them soley for DATA files.
So here is my layout:
hdisk0 --> AIX OS + Control File1 + Redo Log (Group 1) hdisk1 --> AIX OS + Control File2 + Redo Log (Group 2) hdisk2 --> Oracle SW + SYSTEM Tablespace files hdisk3 --> REDO LOGS (Group 3) hdisk4 --> ARCHieve Log Destination + UNDORAID 5 Disk (hdisk5 + hdisk6 + hdisk7) ---> DATA Files + TEMP
I cannot put my "hdisk3" under RAID 5 becos to OS RAID 5 is just one LOGICAL DISK and so I cannot multiplex them on different disk.
Will there be any issues in above setup....? Does someone here nay better idea then this one....?
THANKS!
"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<3f677383$0$28121$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> 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 Wed Sep 17 2003 - 16:20:09 CDT