RE: Sun to Linux on Dell

From: Matthew Zito <mzito_at_gridapp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:45:26 -0700
Message-ID: <F001.005AF44D.20030611092959@fatcity.com>

If
they're already using a fibre channel array, moving to a SAN is not going to inherently improve performance. It's moving to the bigger array that offers the performance improvement generally (which can be done through direct-connect fibre channel if so desired). Large cache regions, more spindles, better read-ahead algorithms, etc. etc. The flip side of that, though, is that all of the TPC benchmarks you see shun the large monolithic arrays (HP, EMC, HDS, etc.) in favor of lots and lots of small JBODs and fibre arrays, because they can afford to throw 900+ spindles at the problem and deal with getting it configured once. This ignores the ongoing nightmare of mananging 900 individual disks, of course. 
But
for a database that's only 76GB, its going to be hard to find a cost-effective fibre channel array that is really smart. A little baby clariion cx200 or HP VA 7100 could probably do the trick, but it depends on what they're using now. Look at iostat, sar, etc. - what's the throughput to the array(s)? What's the average service time overall? Are there particular hotspots? It might be possible to mitigate the performance problems by moving seriously I/O intensive tablespaces onto a solid-state disk or just by reconfiguring the layout to more intelligently distribute the load. Or maybe just adding more disks worth of cheap storage, rather than buying an expensive array. YMMV

Thanks,
Matt
--Matthew ZitoGridApp SystemsEmail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cell: 646-220-3551Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359<A href="http://www.gridapp.com/">http://www.gridapp.com <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

-----Original Message-----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE: Sun to Linux on Dell
 I'd
 go Windows on the Dell box. There are some quite nice tools like perfmon that can give you a lot of info about what is going on. My preferred Windows box though would be the Proliant, it's earned it's reputation over time for performance and reliability.
 
 Problem with a big system though is the cost of the port. I'd tend to stick with a SUN box with a SAN but do the sums. 
 If
 you want sheer performance dump the disk drives except a couple mirrored for the operating system then go something like an HP SAN. We've seen thirty fold improvement on some databases going SAN keeping the same server.
 
 Cheerio John

<FONT

 face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Michael Kline [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: June 9, 2003 1:14 PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: Sun to Linux on Dell
 I have a cust
 pounding a Sun E450 I believe they
 said it was
 with a large RAID with fiber channels.
<FONT

 face="Courier New">
 They pound this
 thing at 2,037 I/O per seconds and
 end up having
 about 3,868 I/O per data block wait. This is
 averaged over 3-5 days, 24 hr/day, so there are times it's
 way over that. While sometimes slow, performance is
 acceptable most of the time.
<FONT

 face="Courier New">
 They are
 contemplating moving it to Linux and a very high end
 Dell system, perhaps 4-8 CPU, etc.
<FONT

 face="Courier New">
 I've always
 heard Sun was pretty much the best
 on heavy I/O
 and if it were not for the
 fiber channels,
 they would probably have
 been hurting
 big time some time ago.
<FONT

 face="Courier New">
 They are only
 in R&D right now, but has anyone
 done a move of
 this nature?
<FONT

 face="Courier New">
 The database is
 Siebel with many mods and
 sub systems,
 average tuned, about 76gb. It
 is about 139
 million records. They are around
 200 users or
 so.
<FONT

 face="Courier New">
<FONT

 face="Courier New">Maks


<FONT

face="Courier New"> Received on Wed Jun 11 2003 - 11:45:26 CDT