Re: need advice on filesystem layout

brunkow_at_btree.brooktree.com (Susan Brunkow) wrote:

>I am setting up a new HP K200 with a RAID array
>of 20 1 MB disks. After reading all the comments
>about lousy performance with RAID level 5,
>we've decided to use RAID level 1.

Don't believe everything you read. Maybe you should run some tests on RAID 5 yourself. We use RAID 5 and are happy with it. I've seen other favorable comments on it as well.

>We will have at least 3 production databases on the system.
 

>My boss has suggested striping the whole 20 MB into 20
>file systems (meaning that each file system would be spread over
>all of the disks.)
>I am afraid that if I do this, we will have lots of contention
>for the disks, since each file system will be on all the disks.

Egad. That's a system administration nightmare! Of course, it's your machine, do what you want with it.

>I've heard that it's a good idea to separate the data tablespaces,
>system tablespaces, indexes, rollback segments and redo logs, since
>they are all used at once in a transaction.
 

>I am leaning toward setting up 5 files systems on small groups of disks
>maybe group 3 disks into 1 file system for the index tablespaces,
>another 2 disks into a 2MB file system for all the system tablespaces,
>another 3 disks into a file system for the redo logs,
>1 disk for the rollback segments,
>and the rest of the disks into 2 or 3 large files system for all the data
>tablespaces.

This is much more reasonable. Better performance, easier to maintain.

>Has anyone tried either of these approaches? Would one of them
>work better than the other?

Read the OFA handbook that came with Oracle.

>
>Sue Brunkow
>Brooktree Corp
>San Diego, CA
 

>brunkow_at_brooktree.com

jared_at_valleynet.com Received on Fri Nov 03 1995 - 00:00:00 CET