Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!prodigy.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: pharfromhome@hotmail.com (Geomancer) Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Single-disk database and I/O load balancing? Date: 10 Oct 2003 14:59:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.191.176.253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1065823189 8380 127.0.0.1 (10 Oct 2003 21:59:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.oracle.server:245084 > Seriously using one disk for an oracle database is asking for trouble in > most (all?) production environments. You've no safety margin - if that disk > fails it's game over (at least whilst you find another disk and reinstall > from a backup). Thanks Andy. Yes, maybe I should clarify. Of course, the disk is mirrored (one client is triple mirrored) and all are protected against disk failure with redundant controllers. My issue is cost justification and the "myth" of disk file segregation! When a "single" disk system (a mirrored pair) is large enough to hold the whole database, how do I justify asking them to buy six more 72-gig spindles "three mirrored disk pairs", just to segregate redo and indexes and undo. Bottom-line, is disk segregation on non-RAID disk really a "myth", or does it apply to mirrored-only disk databases where the entire database is under 100 gig? By the way, I have checked vendors, and it's hard to find a disk with less than 72-gig these days. . .