Re: asm on san
From: gym dot scuba dot kennedy at gmail <kennedyii_at_verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:47:07 GMT
Message-ID: <fhe1l.1644$c35.728@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
> What it does mean is that to be an effective DBA, we not only need to
> understand the database, but the total SYSTEM. Server, OS, SAN, Arrays,
> Networks, Application development processes and then FINALLY we can
> actually focus on our job. Keeping the database running efficiently.
> As in most environments ANY problem is always the database - until we -
> the DBA - prove otherwise.
>
> I have said for a LONG time, not just anyone can be a DBA.
I agree. THe whole thing is a chain and one must understand the chain to identify bottlenecks. For example, you could have data stripped across 1,000 disks and only have 1 CPU on the san, Your limitation is the CPU in that example.
Jim Received on Sun Dec 14 2008 - 14:47:07 CST
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:47:07 GMT
Message-ID: <fhe1l.1644$c35.728@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
"Michael Austin" <maustin_at_firstdbasource.com> wrote in message
news:b9d1l.9924$yr3.4185_at_nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 14.12.2008 03:19, Michael Austin wrote: >>> Robert Klemme wrote: >>>> On 13.12.2008 23:28, hpuxrac wrote: >>>> >>>>> In this business you have got to be prepared for the fact that >>>>> warm-and-fuzzy only lasts 3-5 years. And if someone doesn't keep up >>>>> they fall by the wayside. >>>> >>>> Switching to the latest and greatest all the time is not an option for >>>> everyone. Especially in the area of storage that back 24x7 systems >>>> large volume data migration can be difficult to impossible. IMHO >>>> understanding of the underlying technologies and how they will scale in >>>> a few years from now is important. There are some fundamental issues >>>> with RAID 5 that a large cache can only mask. >>> >>> Yes, that is true, however, with todays technology, they mask it very >>> well. And as I stated, the virtualization and obfuscation at the array >>> level, including the RAID settings within the array as well as stripping >>> within ASM and potentially IBM's SVC front-end, the RAID level is >>> *almost* a moot point. >> >> Yes, I agree. Unfortunately this is not too good news, because as the >> importance of RAID level decreases, new challenges and potential sources >> for issues arise: network topology, bandwidth, software issues in SAN >> etc. - the whole thing has become significantly more complex than in the >> old days(TM). :-) >> >
> What it does mean is that to be an effective DBA, we not only need to
> understand the database, but the total SYSTEM. Server, OS, SAN, Arrays,
> Networks, Application development processes and then FINALLY we can
> actually focus on our job. Keeping the database running efficiently.
>
> As in most environments ANY problem is always the database - until we -
> the DBA - prove otherwise.
>
> I have said for a LONG time, not just anyone can be a DBA.
I agree. THe whole thing is a chain and one must understand the chain to identify bottlenecks. For example, you could have data stripped across 1,000 disks and only have 1 CPU on the san, Your limitation is the CPU in that example.
Jim Received on Sun Dec 14 2008 - 14:47:07 CST