We too are moving to a Sun Fire 15 K box, with 8
partitions and 40 CPUs. But Our storage is on EMC. And
since we have many partitions they are like separate
machines. We will be housing two production warehouse
databases and 5 production OLTP databases, with all
other environments supporting these databases.
- "Deshpande, Kirti" <kirti.deshpande_at_verizon.com>
wrote:
> Salesmen/Saleswomen tell them what they want to
> hear!
>
> - Kirti
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:54 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
>
> Why does "management" trust a salesman over their
> own IT professionals?
>
>
>
>
>
> "Miller, Jay"
>
> <JayMiller To:
> Multiple recipients of list
> ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> @TDWaterhouse cc:
>
> .com> Subject:
> RE: Advice needed on
> move to Sun 15K (losing spindles)
> Sent by: root
>
>
>
>
>
> 10/11/2002
>
> 12:14 PM
>
> Please
>
> respond to
>
> ORACLE-L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I obviously left out a lot of information :).
>
> We would be using server partitioning, with seperate
> ORACLE_HOMES for each
> database (necessary since we have a variety of
> versions running).
>
> The box would be running 1+0, the Sun reps suggest
> striping across all
> disks
> (my first red flag).
>
> I hadn't even thought of the problem of not being
> able to reboot the
> server,
> that's an excellent point.
>
> Currently we have absolutely no performance problems
> on our OLTP database.
> This whole kerfuffle was an outgrowth of my pushing
> really hard to get a
> backup box for our datawarehouse (which currently
> has no standby, no box
> that it can restored to and no QA box). The
> suggestion was made that
> rather
> than get a separate box for the datawarehouse - get
> the 15K and have the
> OLTP and datawarehouse on different partitions.
> This would certainly speed
> up the data transfer between them (data is
> transferred from OLTP -> Data
> Warehouse on a daily basis). We could then put
> other databases that access
> my databases on other partitions (several other
> databases have snapshots on
> some of my tables).
>
> So this would make some processes more efficient,
> but i/o on my OLTP
> database is currently tuned so well that it hurts
> every time I think of
> giving it up. One spindle has the Oracle
> executables with the redo logs on
> the outside of the disk. Another has the various
> .dat files, shell
> scripts,
> etc, with the archive logs on the outside of the
> disk. Even when we run
> really intensive updates our wio rarely gets very
> high.
>
> Regarding the load question: We have fairly active
> transaction activity
> during the day but most connections are managed by
> Microsoft Transaction
> Server in a middle tier so while there are usually
> app. 200 sessions
> (including some old client server apps) we rarely
> have more than 20 or so
> active at any one time.
>
> The datawarehouse has fewer sessions but often has
> some resource intensive
> queries running.
>
> If anyone can point me to docs/websites saying that
> a large caches does
> *not* make up for fewer disks/spindles I would
> greatly appreciate it.
> Currently I'm being told that Sun must know what
> they're talking about.
>
>
> Thanks again,
> Jay Miller
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 5:19 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
> Others have addressed the performance issues.
>
> What about the admin issues?
>
> If consolidate to a single server, consider a
> separate
> ORACLE_HOME for each database. You may need
> to apply different patches to fix different problems
> in
> various databases.
>
> You have this ability now, but will lose it if you
> consolidate
> without separate ORACLE_HOME's.
>
> Something else you will lose is the ability to
> reboot the
> server if needed for a single database.
>
> Since you may be moving to a 15k, investigate server
> partitioning to retain this functionality.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
>
>
> "Miller, Jay" <JayMiller_at_TDWaterhouse.com>
> Sent by: root_at_fatcity.com
> 10/09/2002 11:53 AM
> Please respond to ORACLE-L
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> cc:
> Subject: Advice needed on move to Sun
> 15K (losing spindles)
>
>
> Our CIO has suggested that we get a Sun 15K to
> house all of our
> databases. This has some advantages (communication
> between the various
> boxes would be much faster) but I have some
> performance concerns.
>
> Specifically, our main OLTP database would go down
> from 18 spindles to 8
> spindles. Mirroring will take away 4 of those
> leaving 4 spindles. The
> vendor (Sun) was recommending striping across all 4
> spindles. He said we
> don't need to worry about i/o issues because there
> will be a large cache.
>
> I'm skeptical and argued for cutting them in half
> (striping 2 and 2). We
> could then at least seperate the redo logs from the
> datafiles (probably
> putting them with the oracle executables and some
> other
=== message truncated ===
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Johnson Poovathummoottil
INET: joni_65_at_yahoo.com
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oct 14 2002 - 10:08:31 CDT
