RE: Solid State Disks for Databases

Actually, once upon a time in Lubljana Slovenia, I benchmarked a system called Wyse 6000 against SGI Indigo2.

Another member of this list was playing for the competition. I did put redo log files on a RAM-disk and it did make

a lot of difference, but it has happened a long, long time ago (RDBMS 6.0.36) in a galaxy far, far away.

The other guy may have something to add to this account.

--

Mladen Gogala

Ext. 121

  _____  

From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:53 PM
To: DGoulet_at_vicr.com
Cc: hkchital_at_singnet.com.sg; Oracle-L
Subject: Re: Solid State Disks for Databases

 

On 9/27/05, Goulet, Dick <DGoulet_at_vicr.com <mailto:DGoulet_at_vicr.com> >
wrote:

Hemant,

        Yes they appear to be much faster than normal disks, but they
are also substantially, like a factor of 3 or 4 times, more expensive as
well. We use EMC Symetrix systems and right now we can get 72GB mirrored 
for about $5,000.  Soliddata's E75 is roughly the same price and only
has 2GB of space.


See Cary's excellent, as usual, post on not spending money where it makes
almost no difference. 

Where I suspect a number of systems may benefit is in alleviating the redo
bottleneck. (This is of course detectable by looking in the right place).
redo is often a bottleneck on heavy transactional systems (especially those
that have more transactions than they should, and ssd for redo and maybe
archives *might* help. 

ps. $5000 for 72gb seems to come from a vendor that sells Redundant Arrays
of Inordinately expensive Disks. Is the performance and reliability really
better than say http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/


<http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/>  ?



-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com


<http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com>  



--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l