Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Space wasted because of automatic undo management

Re: Space wasted because of automatic undo management

From: Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: 4 Apr 2005 14:13:09 -0700
Message-ID: <1112649189.692370.175490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

DA Morgan wrote:
> Mark Bole wrote:
>
> > HansF wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:07:54 -0800, Vsevolod Afanassiev interested
us by
> >> writing:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yup. Ask your boss which is cheaper ...
> >> a) your salary for the time you spend managing rollback segments,
or
> >> b) 200GB worth of disk drive to set it up automatically
> >>
> >> Note that even high-end SAN certified drives go for under $2000,
and
> >> Linux
> >> or Windows-ready ones for [well under] under $200.
> >> Any counter-thoughts?
> >
> >
> > I couldn't agree more with the arguments in favor of adding more
disk
> > space in this situation. However I wish folks would stop
needlessly
> > weakening the arguments by citing retail $/GB numbers for adding
disk
> > storage as if they comprised the total economic cost.
> >
> > For every disk added to production, frequently the same amount (or
more)
> > of disk must be added to test, development, etc. Then there's the
> > increased cost for backup retention, online standby, and hot spares
to
> > match the increase in primary storage. Power supply, rack space,
and so
> > one are not free. And I've seen too many examples first-hand of
> > administrators who incur labor costs ten times greater than the
cost of
> > the disks just trying to configure and integrate them into a
running
> > system, because it's not something they do often enough to be good
at it.
> >
> > -Mark Bole
>
> I understand your point but the number of experiences I have had with
> dev and test configured as identical to prod is a number remarkably
> close to zero.

Mine much greater than zero, usually because creating a reasonable subset of data in a complex manufacturing or financials system is not the highest priority and takes a project of its own. There are usually some users that need a test or training system quickly refreshable from production. (So init.ora configurations may not be identical, but disk space is, at least for the basic data files, often no arcs or backups needed, until someone needs to test performance or recovery).

I've also seen a variant of what Mark says, namely, labor costs incorrectly noted due to them being considered free - because salaried workers are a fixed cost.

>
> There may be situations where this is an issue but for the vast
majority
> of situations ... throwing another disk at the situation, or a larger
> disk, is an appropriate thing to suggest.

I agree, except I've already got the reputation of sucking up any spare disk space... :-) You should see catfights some places have over divying up a new SAN...

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Word of the day:  scienter.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050402/news_1b2prgn.html
Received on Mon Apr 04 2005 - 16:13:09 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US