From: mpir@bellsouth.net (Joe Maloney) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware,comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Question about Sun disk space configuration for large Oracle database Date: 8 Aug 2001 12:37:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <3b7084a6$1$249$45beb828@newscene.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.15.61.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 997299453 4066 127.0.0.1 (8 Aug 2001 19:37:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Aug 2001 19:37:33 GMT gulab_jaiswal@yahoo.com (Gulabchand Jaiswal) wrote in message news:... > "Richard Piasecki" wrote in message news:<3b7084a6$1$249$45beb828@newscene.com>... > > Greetings. > > > > I am currently developing the physical disk space layout for a large Oracle ...... I have half a dozen db's in the 500GB to 1.6TB+ range, two of them on SUN, but neither SUN is RAID. (2 on AIX, 1 on NT, 2 on HP, 2 on SUN.) One question I have is the app. Are you looking at a OLAP datawarehouse/datamart type application with lots of analysis or an OLTP with lots of volume. The other question is how large are your SGA's going to be? You imply that the one box will have several instances running. I do not favor multiple production instances on the same box. Too much devoted to isolated resources that can be shared, and it is contrary, to me, to the concept of database. If you are doing OLTP, then the more i/o channels you can have the better. I am a DBA, not UA or SA, but every RAID controller I have been involved with (not that many) had multiple i/o channels. Maybe you can get your configuration at the channel level, rather than the controller. (One of my db servers was configured at this level and way, but again, it wasn't Sun, so......) This is because you will be doing lots of little things, so the more channels the better. If you are doing OLAP, then you start going the other way. Relatively speaking, you do a little number of big things (table scans, etc.). The smaller number of channels and controllers won't hurt you too bad. Actually, what will your transaction volume be? That can be another major factor. I agree, for this capacity, if you have the $$, go for EMC or Shark. We use EMC on four of the servers I mentioned above. It has RAID built in, gives reasonable performance, and is a whole lot more convenient. (Look into TimeFinder and BCV for doing backups. You will be backing up the DBs, won't you.)