Re: Sizing hw for small oracle database

Hi:

See some of the info on my site below. It may help (particularly the section on Configuration).

Regards,

--
David C. Sisk
Need tech info on Oracle? Visit The Unofficial ORACLE on NT site at http://www.ipass.net/~davesisk/oont.htm Like original music? Listen to song samples and buy a CD at http://www.mp3.com/disparityofcult

Magnus Bergh wrote in message ...
>I know that it is hard to do a general suggestion on sizing hardware but
>I need a starting point for recommendations to customers. I think the
>number of concurrent users is a one way to determine the sizing of
>hardware even if 2 sites with the same number of users might differ
>depending on how the application is used (how many users ar doing heavy
>data entry users or running heavy batch processes compared to users
>running only mall queries).
>
>The small sites are more sensitive to cost than the larger sites (100+
>users) so I have to compromise optimal configuration from a performance
>and availability aspect, with the cost.
>
>The application is an OLTP (about 200 tables), small frequent
>select/insert/updates.
>
>O/S: NT/Netware/Linux Lets assume o/s is NT (customers preference, not
>my).
>
>In most cases 7 x 24 availability is not necessary (most use the
>application "9-5"), but sensitivity to down-time during regular working
>hours is different (some will not tolerate any longer
>
>Processor and memory
>--------------------
>
>10-20 concurrent users, 250-500 MB data
>
>Minimum: 1 Pentium II 266 MHz or better, 128 MB RAM
>Recommended: 1 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, 256 MB RAM
>
>50 concurrent users, 0,5 - 2 GB data
>
>Minimum: 1 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, 256 MB RAM
>Recommended 2 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, maybe start with 1
>processor (buy a motherboard expandable to 2-4 processors), 512 MB RAM
>
>For which load do you think it is necessary to use more than 1 processor
>(a general rough estimate since it is impossible to know for sure until
>you have analyzed the actual CPU usage).
>
>Storage
>-------
>
>There are two things to consider, performance and availability. "Every
>installation is Mission Critical but some are more Mission critical than
>other", i.e. for some customers it is ok that the system is down a half
>day or more but for some other it is unacceptable. One way to classify
>the sites is availability and performance, Some examples:
>
>a) Low demand for availability. Losing some data is acceptable ("I will
>tolerate losing all work since the last backup")
>
>I don't think this kind of user would need the application to run on
>Oracle but I include this category anyway.
>
>Storage: 1 SCSI disk. If better performance add one or more disks (RAID0
>or manually balancing load)
>
>Use archiving if protection against instance failure is important (but no
>protection against media failure).
>
>b) Fault tolerant but down-time for replacing a failed disk and recovery
>is acceptable, losing data is not acceptable.
>
>- O/S, Oracle s/w and datafiles on disk 1 and 1 set of redo logs and
>control file (if high through-put is required, use RAID0 or manually
>balancing load on 2 or more disks, maybe also separating o/s and software
>to an own disk)
>
>- Mirrored redo logs and control file+ archived log files on disk 2
>
>This configuration would require at least 2 disks
>
>c) Fault tolerant, high availability (no down-time during work-hours),
>small-medium througput requirements.
>
>1) Everything on RAID5 (3 disks or more)
>
>2) An alternative is perhaps to add two more disks (no RAID) and put Redo
>logs and archive logs on these (multiplexed to each disk)
>
>d) Fault tolerant, high availability (no down-time during work-hours),
>high througput requirements.
>
>1) Use RAID1+0 (4 disks or more)
>2) Manually balancing load on several RAID1 arrays for data files, o/s
>and Oracle, separate disks (2) for redo logs/archive logs.
>
>
>Any comments or recommendations? I think that for our customers will
>choose either alternative b) (probably using > 2 disks) or c) (RAID5
>only).
>
>I am very interested in hearing about what your configuration you are
>using.
>
>BTW, have you ever installed a production site using IDE disk. My opinion
>is that IDE disks are not suitable for a server (either Oracle or even a
>file server). We have a customer who wants us to install Oracle on his
>existing "server" which is a PII-266, 128 RAM using 1 IDE disk. I have
>recommended against using this configuration (I can live with the
>processor and memory because it is few users, but the IDE disk is not
>acceptable).
>
>Magnus
>
>
Received on Tue Aug 24 1999 - 20:03:52 CDT