Re: Oralce 10gR2 Setup questions
From: jgar the jorrible <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <60c25e24-26c3-4848-a2d5-b0faf46daf96_at_z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 31, 1:52 pm, Michael Austin <maus..._at_firstdbasource.com> wrote:
> jgar the jorrible wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:44 pm, bw <b..._at_abc.com> wrote:
> >> 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
> >> RMAN.
>
> > I've been getting around 10:1 compression with 10GR2 RMAN, complete
> > backup of 100G db takes an hour with a low-end SAN (saturating a
> > RAID-5 cache with data and backup on same device).
>
> Wow.. that is really slow... 5 years ago I was backing up (and had to
> retore once...) a more than 700G database in < 3.5 hrs. So on a well
> tuned SAN and OS, you should be doing better than 100GB/hr Oh...
> wait... - Sorry... never mind... he is talking about Weendoze... not a
> real computer.
>
>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <60c25e24-26c3-4848-a2d5-b0faf46daf96_at_z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 31, 1:52 pm, Michael Austin <maus..._at_firstdbasource.com> wrote:
> jgar the jorrible wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:44 pm, bw <b..._at_abc.com> wrote:
> >> 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
> >> RMAN.
>
> > I've been getting around 10:1 compression with 10GR2 RMAN, complete
> > backup of 100G db takes an hour with a low-end SAN (saturating a
> > RAID-5 cache with data and backup on same device).
>
> Wow.. that is really slow... 5 years ago I was backing up (and had to
> retore once...) a more than 700G database in < 3.5 hrs. So on a well
> tuned SAN and OS, you should be doing better than 100GB/hr Oh...
> wait... - Sorry... never mind... he is talking about Weendoze... not a
> real computer.
>
>
I'm on hp-ux Itanium, assuming the slowness is due to RAID-5 and cheapass SAN (from when I was briefly watching it before it went production - middle of the night backup now, really doesn't pay to tune. I may be able to compare SAME soon, identical SAN, older pa-risc). So that should be a reasonable expectation for Weeniedos.
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. what about lolcatz? http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001248.htmlReceived on Tue Mar 31 2009 - 17:14:05 CDT