I agree with Ixora's criticism of SAME; however, I think that Oracle is
justified in offering a solution that will provide adequate performance for
those DBA's who don't understand RAID. That some DBA's don't understand
RAID is evidenced by the inevitable response to read up on OFA and the 22
disk solution.
If you set up multiple stripe sets, per the Ixora paper, then you can treat
those stripe sets as "disks" and implement OFA and the 22 (or 7 or
whatever) disk solution. But the SAME solution works in most cases.
Glenn
Stauffer To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
<stauffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@swarthmore.e cc:
du> Subject: Re: DBA Experiences with Oracle
and
Sent by: root RAID 0+1
01/15/2002
08:45 AM
Please
respond to
ORACLE-L
I assume you've read the white paper available on metalink or technet
concerning the concept of striping and mirroring everything (S.A.M.E.).
There is a criticism of this configuration at ixora:
http://www.ixora.com.au/newsletter/2000_10.htm#same
Personally, I feel that the S.A.M.E. architecture is a good one for the
vast
majority of Oracle installations. I went this route on my new server
because
the administrative overhead associated with managing datafile distribution
and storage allocation outweighed the impact of what could be argued to be
less than optimal disk performance. My experience has been that the
difference is performance has been pretty much insignificant anyway.
The number of disks in your stripe really matters when it comes to
performance. When I decided to implement a SAME architecture, I configured
the system with 36 drives - striped across 18 and mirrored. Do you feel
that the raw I/O performance of your drive configuration is sufficient for
the demands of your database? Are you being asked to meet a performance
goal
within the constraints of a fixed budget or are you allowed to spend what
is
required to meet a specific performance goal?
Glenn Stauffer
On Monday 14 January 2002 03:40 pm, Jon Behnke wrote:
> We are in the process of setting up a SAN using RAID 0+1 for our
database.
> In our current environment, we are able to separate our tables, indexes,
> rollback segments, and archive logs on different disks. On the SAN we
> would have six 73 gig disks on RAID 0+1 for a total of about 210 Gig of
> usable space (3 disks worth of space).
>
> Some white papers that I have read suggest attempting to separate the
data,
> indexes, and rollback segments on separate RAID volumes, and others
simply
> suggest that the performance boost of striping will supercede the
> separation of these items.
>
> Can anyone offer any comments or suggestions?
>
> Jon Behnke
> Applications Development Manager
> Industrial Electric Wire & Cable
> Phone (262) 957-1147 Fax (262) 957-1647
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Glenn Stauffer
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author:
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
