Re: RAID10 config...

> I assume you meant to say that your controlfiles are *not* a bottleneck?
> That would be great because then I could put one on the volume
> with the datafiles.

Yes, that's what I meant. I corrected myself after it was pointed out to me.

> > Get more disks!! LOL. Why can't you hang more disks on your system?
> It was a long enough fight to get a server with 8 disk slots when our whole
> database would fit on one disk. It was another long and hard fight to get
> the disks paired instead of put into one big raid5. I'll be shot for even thinking
> about another rack just for a bunch of disks.

I understand that it is a "political" issue. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a technical one. And I've been down this road before. What I've typically done is more of a CYA (Cover Your Ass) thing. I'd recognize early on that this configuration is going to be a problem. And when I lost the battle to correct the problem before it started, I'd make sure to put into writing what the issue is and send it to management. File a copy of this memo in case you need it (to CYA). Then keep good statistics on performance. When someone complains about poor performance, pull out your data indicating where the performance problem lies, then pull our your copy of the memo and say "see....I told you so", but probably do it a little more politely than that. Then have a good talk with management about how you know the database better than anyone in your organization, that they are paying you a very good salary to know and provide this information, and that your intial recommendation still stands...to buy more disk! I always try to phrase it better than that though.

HTH,
Brian

-- 
===================================================================

Brian Peasland
dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com

Remove the "remove_spam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good. Now pick two out of
 the three"