Re: Should we use Raw partitions or Unix File Systems???

jmj22026_at_glaxowellcome.com wrote:
>
> We are getting two new HP servers. These machines are
> supposed to be top of the line. 1GB ram, 64 bit machines,
> storage array with 20 disk, and 2 CPU's. One of our DBA's
> wants to use Raw Partitions. Is any one using this or has
> any one investigated the ups and downs of using RAW vs Unix
> File Systems. Any input would be greatly appreciated. I
> have only heard negative things, but am open to suggestions
> or ideas. Please either post back to news group or send to
> jmj22026_at_glaxowellcome.com Thanks!!
>
> John Jones
> Oracle Consultant
> jmj22026_at_glaxowellcome.com

John:

The intention is not to start a wild thread into file sys. VS. raw as a choice for datafiles.

With 64 bit machines you might want to take advantage of larger datafiles (Oracle 7.3 and above) to have larger extents (more number of contiguous data blocks), less number of datafiles to manage etc. etc.

And from what Oracle support tells me that datafiles larger than 2gig (the limit for 32 bit UNIX m/cs) is possible only on raw partitions even on 64-bit m/cs. For HP, that could be different, depending on how far the Oracle development team has gotten on HP. You should get in touch with the HP-Oracle development team through their support and find out the facts. But again, if performance is sole criterion, I would go raw. If you are not backing up on a DLT you are better off with file systems. I have not had too many problems with raw partitions on 32-bit m/cs. We are also transfering our database to a 64-bit m/c with a lot of RAM (3G) and the decision so far has been raw. You might not be able to use multiple db writers if you go raw (in case you are planning to).

Regards,
Krishna Received on Sun Dec 01 1996 - 00:00:00 CET