Re: Raw vs. Cooked

Just a little expansion on the "single large storage unit" (see below) for a database.

I did have many physical storage units in our Informix system. While familiarizing myself with Oracle, I found the Oracle SAME paper. I tried it (a single big RAID10 physical storage allocation) with our Informix database on one of our new Sun boxes. Now I have a bunch of things contributing to the results (new box, new configuration, new RAID, and the new storage structure), but the results were fantastic. I have become a fan of SAME.

Someday, when I have spare time and am looking for pain, I might actually try to set up the traditional many dbspaces/tablespaces thing, and agonize over what to place where. But, in the meantime, SAME is great, and I'll try it on our new Oracle system, too.

DG

"David E. Grove" <david_grove_at_correct.state.ak.us> wrote in message news:10s6p0i7tal4q44_at_corp.supernews.com...
>
> I think I'll change my mind for our first development install, and use
> cooked space. I'll then study Oracle structure and plan to use raw for
> production. The reason for going with cooked now is that as I started
> reading the Oracle Installation Guide, it seemed that, unlike Informix
(have
> been Informix DBA), I couldn't just make the single equivalent in Oracle
> (i.e., a single tablespace) of a single big Informix storage unit (a
"whole
> enchilada" rootdbs dbspace). It appeared to me from the Installation
Guide
> that I needed to create a dozen (raw) tablespaces.
>
> So, until I understand Oracle better, I'll start with cooked, and then
> "graduate" to raw, later.
>
> Thank you all for your helpful comments.
>
>
> DG
>
>
>
>
>
> <david_grove_at_correct.state.ak.us> wrote in message
> news:1103230119.537094.214900_at_c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I am the dba for our shop's Informix based app. We use raw devices on
> > our Sun Solaris boxes.
> >
> > We are about ready to start the process of redeveloping our agency's
> > main app using Oracle. I am starting to familiarize myself with
> > Oracle.
> >
> > I'm wondering about the ole cooked vs. raw space issue.
> >
> > In my Informix experience, I am quite comfortable using raw space.
> > However,I have gotten the impression
> > from Oracle folks (for example, an Oracle instructor) that the
> > customary practice with Oracle is to use cooked space. In fact, the
> > instructor said there wouldn't be any difference, so he suggested using
> > "the more
> > convenient" cooked space. To me, it doesn't really seem inconvenient
> > to
> > use raw, so I would be happy to go that way if there is a performance
> > gain (which seems likely to me). I am assuming that there exist
> > Oracle utilities to
> > handle backups or loading/unloading raw storage.
> >
> > Anyway, while considering this, I found a recent (April 2004) Oracle
> > white paper that
> > seems to support my personal bias (don't we just love to see our
> > prejudices reinforced?). It is called "A Quantitative Comparison
> > Between Raw Devices and File Systems for Implementing Oracle
> > Databases". It can be found here:
> >
> >
>

http://www.oracle.com/technology/deploy/performance/pdf/TWP_Oracle_HP_files.pdf
> >
> > It concludes that using raw devices is much superior to cooked. But,
> > perhaps that conclusion is meant to apply specifically to HP platforms,
> > since that was the basis of the paper.
> >
> > Anyway, among the Oracle cogniscenti, is raw really generally avoided
> > in favor of cooked? Does this paper challenge the generally accepted
> > Oracle practice? Is there a generally accepted "factoid" in the Oracle
> > world that either raw or cooked is "the way to go"?
> >
> > We will be using one big S.A.M.E. RAID10 device. The question is to
> > cook or not to cook, and administrative difficulties of raw vs cooked
> > are not an issue (assuming suitable Oracle tools exist).
> > Thank you for any comments.
> >
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 17 2004 - 17:48:04 CST