Re: Physical layout of a DB in RAC environment

From: Roman Klesel <rupa_at_firemail.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 07:58:01 +0100
Message-ID: <401A0079.8020808@firemail.de>

Daniel Morgan wrote:
> Sybrand Bakker wrote:
>

>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:29:27 -0800, Daniel Morgan
>> <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It works just fine. Let the SAN or NAS handle the problem. Once 
>>> you've written to the head ... the rest can just be ignored.
>>>
>>> With RAW we got rid of file systems. With 10g even the volume 
>>> management can go away. It is a brave new world ... every 5 years or so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you mean this seriously, or are you just being cynical?
>> To me the proposed configuration looks like it has been designed by
>> someone who is either just released from a mental asylum or is a bean
>> counter (or both)
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

>
>
> Seriously.
>
> With NetApp or EMC ... the one's I'm familiar with ... once you've
> written to the head you can just ignore it ... questions about
> stripping, mirroring, RAID, etc. are irrelevant. The head takes full
> responsiblity for reading, writing, and recovery.
>
> I've also come to the point where I think backing up to tape is a
> ridiculous waste of time and money. These days you can back up to hard
> disks far faster and for the same money. Fill a disk, pop it out,
> replace it with another. Recycle hard disks not tape.
>

Hmmm...!

So there seems to be a quite spread out spectrum of opinions about this.

My main 2 doubts in this whole setup are:

1. The storage System (althogh it has redundant components) remmains a single point of failure for all 3 instances: RAC1, RAC2 and shadow.
2. Does such a storage system prevent I/O contentions effectively between REDLOG ARCHIVELOG and DATA/TEMP File aktivity?

BTW. We also use RAW devices ... what a hassle ...

Regars Roman Received on Fri Jan 30 2004 - 00:58:01 CST