| RAID for indexes vs. tables [message #63162] |
Wed, 15 September 2004 04:38  |
Mike
Messages: 417
Registered: September 1998
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We have a warehouse which is actually a kludge of dss, warehouse, and some applications schemas with very low oltp.
The previous dba set up all of the data tablespace files on raid 5 and all of the indexes on raid 10 (1+0), except for the local partitioned indexes, which are stored with the table partitions.
In addition, many of the index tablespaces where created with system allocation, and I am slowly creating new index tablespaces with different uniform extent sizes, from small to jumbo depending on the index data. We have a large SAN with terrific throughput and a Sunfire 6800 box with 16 cpus and 8G of Ram.
My question is, what RAID is preferable for the relocated indexes?
Should I put them on RAID 5 like the data or keep them on raid 10? Most of the tables have few updates except for the large partitioned tables, which have batch loads at night of varying amounts of rows. My gut feeling is that since there is not a lot of updates to index data other than some of the batch loads, the indexes are better off on raid 5, just in different file systems than the tables. We have ten raid 5 file system totalling about 800g and 4 raid 10 file systems totalling about 400g.
Any and all opinions on this are welcome.
|
|
|
|
| Re: RAID for indexes vs. tables [message #63163 is a reply to message #63162] |
Wed, 15 September 2004 05:03  |
 |
Mahesh Rajendran
Messages: 10708
Registered: March 2002
Location: oracleDocoVille
|
Senior Member
Account Moderator |
|
|
I would go for a RAID 5 for both data and index.
Seperating data and index is not going to help performance in most of the cases.
But it does help with adminstration.
|
|
|
|
] 
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
