Re: Oralce 10gR2 Setup questions
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 31, 12:44 am, bw <b..._at_abc.com> wrote:
> I have been running Oraclee 9.2 in WIndow2000 Server. I have the
> folowinf setup: Drive C: Oracle Home; Drive D: Tablespace for Data;
> Drive E: Tablespace for Index; Drive F: Archive redo Log; Drive G:
> RMAN Backup location. This database supports a busy on-line system
> with 24X7 update. The transactions are regular text data.
> It worked very well for many years. C, D, E, F, G are different
> volumes on different physical drives to enhance repsonse time,
> reliability and recoverability. Each volume will not be too big,
> probably around 80G, except the G which may house 2 or 3 copies of
> And we are upgrading to Oracl 10g R2 on Window 2003 very soon. We
> will be purchasing Blade Servers. Wonder if there is need to separate
> the database components as now.
> If we are moving to SAN, do I need to carve the SAN similarly ? Do we
> need to separate Data and Index Tablspaces on different LUN (it then
> carved uder different physical drives). I heard that SAN have the
> Cache, and this steps may not be needed.
> I probably set up the Flash Recovery Area in F drive to hold the
> Archive Logs. Should I use this area for RMAN files as well ? I
> recalled it was recommanded to separate Archived Logs and Rman files
> to make recoverability better.
> I have one last questions on where I should place Oracle Home. If I
> install Oracle on drive D in SAN, what if the System drive C fails.
> After I reinstall WIndow 2003, do I just update the PATH to point to
> the Oracle Home in drive D in SAN, and recreate the instance using
> oradim ?
It all depends on what your definition of a "buy online system" is and there are lots of ways to measure that.
Obviously one choice is to "not do very much at all" as you move to a SAN. Another choice is to drink heavily of the Oracle Kool aid and go ASM etc. ( We moved into ASM and it is working well for us ... ).
You don't really need to use a flash recovery are but you certainly can if you want to.
Many people feel that data and index tablespaces do not need to be separated out ( but ours still are ) especially once ASM is considered. Lots of choices in the ASM world including using external redundancy ... etc.
If you have the time ... do some setup in different ways and do some benchmarking of performance in different setups. I guess one should argue that without doing benchmarking and checking out different possible setups you are just shooting in the dark. Received on Tue Mar 31 2009 - 08:54:37 CDT