Tim - excellent analogy! its good one to tell da'mgrs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/29/02 08:29PM
As with any cached I/O subsystem technology (i.e. RAID-S, NetApps, etc),
please visualize a water tank. The water tank represents the cache, the
drain from the tank represents I/O throughput rates from
Not a silly analogy - a very good one.
Yechiel Adar
Mehish
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:29 AM
As with any cached I/O subsystem technology (i.e. RAID-S, NetApps, etc),
please visualize a water tank.
-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:47 AM
To: Brooks, Russ
Russ-
The hardware architects within our shop have pointed out similar performance
information to me...
We are using HDS 9960 boxes, and the file systems will be setup as a RAID5
on the SAN as compared to RAID0+1
Russ:
We're using EMC Clariion disk arrays. These are using EMC's version
of RAID-5; they call it RAID-S. There is 2GB of cache if front of
the disks. They claim that the cache is write guaranteed so that
we'll never lose an update. So far, so good, and the performance
has been acceptable,
As with any cached I/O subsystem technology (i.e. RAID-S, NetApps, etc),
please visualize a water tank. The water tank represents the cache, the
drain from the tank represents I/O throughput rates from the cache to the
hard-drives, and the faucet filling the tank represents the I/O volumes from
Hi,
I just got
forwarded a whitepaper from Hitachi and Oracle, that compairs raid 5+ and raid 1
using the TPC-C benchmark test suite. The claim is that raid 5 is as fast
or faster. While I'm waiting for a comparison or raid 5+ with raid 0+1, I
thought I'd take a poll with the list.The
What would interest me is the number of
disks used in each test.
Anjo.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brooks,
Russ
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002
11:24 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
ORACLE-L
Subject: RAID5+
Hi
And the date of
the paper.
Excuse my
ignorance: I know what RAID 5 is, but what is 5+ ?
-Original Message-From: Anjo Kolk
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:59
PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
RAID5+
What would interest
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=002_Dragon751246812548_=
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=GB2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Brooks, Russ=A3=AC=C4=FA=BA=C3=A3=A1
=A1=A1=A1=A1Can you show us your whitepaper? Where did you get it?
Hi List,
I'm looking for recomendations, best practice, etc about setting strip size for RAID5
arrays.
We have a hybrid system (mainly OLTP) with prevelant reads operations and have limited
number of
disks.
My question is should I merely setup the stip size equal to Oracle block size
is not which raid level to use or whether to use at all.
The question is, and I promise this is the very last time I post it: given 9
hard drives dedicated for RAID5, should data reside on 6 drives via volume
group A and indexes on the other 3 drives via volume group B, or should data
Mogens, the super-market analogy does not apply - this is for SQL Server
database. I'm not sure how far I'll be able to tweak that rdbms, hence my
question did not contain many details - it was simply a request for
opinions.
Btw, to sum up current responses:
Option 1: split 9 drives to separate
were for the original question.
The issue in hand is not which raid level to use or whether to use at all.
The question is, and I promise this is the very last time I post it: given
9
hard drives dedicated for RAID5, should data reside on 6 drives via volume
group A and indexes on the other 3
Static data raid 5 is a very good option, it has great read performance and
very inexpensive.
Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if
both are frozen.
Christopher R. Spence
Oracle DBA
Fuelspot
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:20 PM
Since RAID5 means that data is striped, of course read performance is OK. As
soon as you talk write performance, however, RAID5 becomes something of a joke
since it was invented back in the 70's to offer a cheap alternative to the fast,
extremely expensive disks offered by IBM back then. So
On Sunday 10 June 2001 16:15, Mogens Nørgaard wrote:
It becomes really absurd when you look at the SAN offerings on the market.
For instance, IBM's Shark only offers the customer the choice between JBOD
(Just a Bunch Of Disks, ie., Non-RAID) and RAID5. IBM has a red book out
regarding
for RAID5, should data reside on 6 drives via volume
group A and indexes on the other 3 drives via volume group B, or should data
and indexes be placed on all 9 drives via one volume group? The data is
absolutely static.
Gary
- Original Message -
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
On Sunday 10 June 2001 20:15, Gary Weber wrote:
The question is, and I promise this is the very last time I post it: given
9 hard drives dedicated for RAID5, should data reside on 6 drives via
volume group A and indexes on the other 3 drives via volume group B, or
should data and indexes
promise this is the very last time I post it: given 9
hard drives dedicated for RAID5, should data reside on 6 drives via volume
group A and indexes on the other 3 drives via volume group B, or should data
and indexes be placed on all 9 drives via one volume group? The data is
absolutely static
All,
9 drives + hot spare
Would you stripe 6 for data and other 3 for indexes, or use one 9-drive
volume for both? One side of me says the more spindles the merrier - keep
them together, the other side says - separate data and indexes. The third,
evil SA side is waiting for the first two to
What about redo logs, rbs, temp, system, exe's?
Number of spindles doesn't necessarly mean faster performance. Depends on
the data and the controller. If you set 6 disks with 64 Kb stripe size,
your stripe width is 384 Kb with Raid 0. If your not using a write-back
caching controller, you
recipients of list ORACLE-L
Guys, this is not an attempt to start that old discussion but:-
I have been told to install Oracle + a DB on an IBM RS6000 box with nothing
but a RAID5 disk array on it.
I have explained my misgivings on this but I am told that the DB will be
used mainly for read-only
Guys, this is not an attempt to start that old discussion but:-
I have been told to install Oracle + a DB on an IBM RS6000 box with nothing
but a RAID5 disk array on it.
I have explained my misgivings on this but I am told that the DB will be
used mainly for read-only
operations with very few
Oracle + a DB on an IBM
RS6000 box with nothing
but a RAID5 disk array on it.
I have explained my misgivings on this but I am told
that the DB will be
used mainly for read-only
operations with very few modifications to the data
(apart from the initial
load of 100GB).
Any ideas
, May 22, 2001 6:32 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Guys, this is not an attempt to start that old discussion but:-
I have been told to install Oracle + a DB on an IBM RS6000 box with nothing
but a RAID5 disk array on it.
I have explained my misgivings on this but I am told that the DB
Thanks Dave, Don, and Patrice.
It's hardware RAID, a Compaq GS140 machine, and Oracle on VMS [not my
choice of OS/hardware]. Limited to one large RAID5 volume.
I'd like to make the most of what's there, because for political
reasons nothing else will change.
Does it make any sense to increase
Hey Dana,
Are you kidding? A GS140 running OVMS would be my choice of OS/Hardware!
OK, OS bigotry aside... ;)
The RAID5 *WILL* give you performance problems! RAID5 is the worst
performer for write operations. The LGWR,and associated slave processes
(and to a somewhat lesser extent, the DBWR
I would try to benchmark the system to show where the bottleneck(s) is(are).
Probably I/O, possibly the CPU if you are using NT RAID5 instead of a
hardware solution. If your machines aren't real servers, then the disk
controller will slow things down as well, in many PCs there is one
controller
Presuming a DBA is forced to use RAID5, what elements of tuning become
irrelevant? (in the sense that if you're stuck with RAID5, warts and
all, then trying to tune X, Y, and Z would be a waste of time /
ineffective).
Load balancing files would be one thing.. no way to put indexes and
tables
dana mn wrote:
Presuming a DBA is forced to use RAID5, what elements of tuning become
irrelevant? (in the sense that if you're stuck with RAID5, warts and
all, then trying to tune X, Y, and Z would be a waste of time /
ineffective).
Load balancing files would be one thing.. no way to put
30 matches
Mail list logo
