Re: Single-disk database and I/O load balancing?

pharfromhome_at_hotmail.com (Geomancer) wrote in message news:<cf90fb89.0310101359.e7bd81c_at_posting.google.com>...
> > Seriously using one disk for an oracle database is asking for trouble in
> > most (all?) production environments. You've no safety margin - if that disk
> > fails it's game over (at least whilst you find another disk and reinstall
> > from a backup).
>
> Thanks Andy. Yes, maybe I should clarify. Of course, the disk is
> mirrored (one client is triple mirrored) and all are protected against
> disk failure with redundant controllers.
>
> My issue is cost justification and the "myth" of disk file
> segregation!
>
> When a "single" disk system (a mirrored pair) is large enough to hold
> the whole database, how do I justify asking them to buy six more
> 72-gig spindles "three mirrored disk pairs", just to segregate redo
> and indexes and undo.
>
> Bottom-line, is disk segregation on non-RAID disk really a "myth", or
> does it apply to mirrored-only disk databases where the entire
> database is under 100 gig?
>
> By the way, I have checked vendors, and it's hard to find a disk with
> less than 72-gig these days. . .

eureka!!
HJR will love this one.

Tell them that you absolutely, most definitely, have to put indexes and data on separate RAID volumes.

on that note, I'm calling it a night.

Pd Received on Fri Oct 10 2003 - 23:18:28 CDT