May I suggest Halifax, Canada as a great location for this course???
StilL waiting for Oracle OpenWorld to come here, somehow they never do.
: )
Regards,
Patrice Boivin
Systems Analyst (Oracle Certified DBA)
Systems Admin & Operations | Admin. et Exploit. des systèmes
Technology Services | Services technologiques
Informatics Branch | Direction de l'informatique
Maritimes Region, DFO | Région des Maritimes, MPO
E-Mail: boivinp_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:06 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: DBA Experiences with Oracle and RAID 0+1
you have no idea how badly most of us now want to come to that class.
Not that I'd understand most of what was said, but just to listen :)
- Mogens Nørgaard <mln_at_miracleas.dk> wrote:
> Jared,
>
> Good thought! We're running our annual Miracle Master Class (this
> year
> with Jonathan Lewis) this week and Cary Millsap (and his gang),
> Jonathan
> and James will arrive tomorrow (Monday), while Steve Adams, Lex de
> Haan,
> Stephan Haisley and a bunch of other guys will arrive on Tuesday.
> I'll
> keep this message and throw it up for discussion on the Oak Table
> (see
> Cary's wonderful article on www.Undskyld.Org)...
>
> Jared Still wrote:
>
> >Mogens,
> >
> >In regard to the number of spindles issue: James Morle has some
> >excellent discussion on that in 'Scaling Oracle 8i'. ( I think
> it's that
> >book )
> >
> >When some of the newer larges drives are used in a given
> configuration,
> >they mabe be able to outperform older drives in a similar
> configuration with
> >a larger number of spindles.
> >
> >I say 'older' since smaller drives usually aren't using the latest
> technology
> >and the newer ones have sufficiently higher throughput to match the
> >capability of a larger number of drives in given configuration.
> >
> >Food for thought, anyway.
> >
> >Jared
> >
> >
> >On Sunday 20 January 2002 06:50, Mogens Nørgaard wrote:
> >
> >>Diego,
> >>
> >>I agree with you 100% and didn't express myself correctly in my
> email.
> >>The more spindles the better. What I meant to say was that you must
> >>never buy disks by taking your total needed amount of space and
> divide
> >>by the number of big disks you can get hold on :). It's the number
> of
> >>IO's required by the disk system that matters, not the size...
> >>
> >>Thanks for making this clear to everyone.
> >>
> >>Mogens
> >>
> >>Diego Cutrone wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mogens:
> >>> Just let me disagree with you at only one point. According to
> my
> >>>experience, I think that the size of the disks in an array does
> matter
> >>>sometimes. It's not the same to have 24 9GB disks that to have
> only 3 of
> >>>73GB. You have 24 spindles againts 3, the first option (in a well
> >>>configured system of course) will give you better performance in
> >>>enviroments where you have a lot of concurrency and many users.
> >>> However I think that what I've written above might not be
> correct (may
> >>>be it should be tested) if the 73GB outstands for a long way the
> 9GB disks
> >>>in terms of seek time and transfer rate.
> >>> Take a look at an extract of Gaja's paper "Implementing RAID on
> >>>Oracle":
> >>>
> >>>"5) Procure the smallest drive money can buy, keeping in mind
> scalability,
> >>>limits of the host
> >>>machine, the disk array and growth projections for the database.
> This is a
> >>>tough one these
> >>>days, with 18 GB drives considered as small drives.
> >>>
> >>>6) Bigger and faster drives are not always better than smaller
> slower
> >>>drives, as the seek times
> >>>for larger and faster drives with larger form factors, may be more
> than
> >>>their smaller and
> >>>slower counterparts. This is not that big of an issue, if your
> drives
> >>>support a built-in track
> >>>buffer cache for storing an entire track's worth of data from read
> >>>request(s)."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>HTH
> >>>Greeting
> >>>Diego Cutrone
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:25 PM
> >>>
> >>>>Jon,
> >>>>
> >>>>It's one of those "how many bags will I need in the supermarket?"
> >>>>questions - it depends.
> >>>>
> >>>>Consider:
> >>>>
> >>>>- RAID 1+0 is much better than 0+1.
> >>>>- Three disks is not much w.r.t. IO capability. If you have three
> >>>>concurrent users you'll be OK :)
> >>>>- Size doesn't matter (who cares if it's 10, 36 or 73 Gig disks?
> It's
> >>>>the IO capabilitity that counts)
> >>>>- I'm new to this list, so I don't know if this will work, but
> I've
> >>>>attached a brilliant presentation by our old friend James Morle
> (check
> >>>>out www.ScaleAbilities.com) regarding SAN, NAS and RAS (Random
> Acronym
> >>>>Seminar).
> >>>>- If you're only striping across three disks (is that really a
> SAN?)
> >>>>just SAME (Stripe And Mirror Everything). It might not be good,
> but it's
> >>>>simple.
> >>>>
> >>>>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
> >>>>>jonb_at_iewc.com
> >>>>>
> >
> >----------------------------------------
> >Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"; name="Attachment: 1"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >Content-Description:
> >----------------------------------------
> >
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Rachel Carmichael
INET: wisernet100_at_yahoo.com
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: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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: Boivin, Patrice J
INET: BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
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: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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).
Received on Mon Jan 21 2002 - 07:04:19 CST
