RE: SAN and ORACLE

From: Jesse, Rich <Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:24:53 -0600
Message-ID: <FBE1FCA40ECAD41180400050DA2BC54004E9366A@qtiexch2.qgraph.com>

Well, we can't justify a SHARK, but we've got a FAStT (baby SHARK) on order, and we plan to zone the physical drives exactly as you have described. I'm not sure about the SHARK, but the lowly (in comparison -- no fins on the racks) FAStT and IBM's Storage Manager can handle it nicely, as long as you're not running Windohs.

Rich

Rich Jesse                        System/Database Administrator
rich.jesse_at_qtiworld.com           Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA

-----Original Message-----

From: ed lewis [mailto:eglewis_at_hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:47 PM To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: SAN and ORACLE

Hi,

I'm interested in people's experiences with SAN, specifically SHARK, and Oracle.

I have adopted a system where all of the Oracle files, including archive, redo, rbs etc, reside on the same "logical" device. I know that the placement of this data is handled by the SAN.

My concern is with the recovery issue, more than with performance. I would like to separate the data from the Oracle files that are required for recovery (archive,redo,rbs,etc). I was hoping to create a separate "logical" device which has it's own physical devices that are separate from the data, and place the recovery files there.

I was told that this is not possible with a SAN. Is this really the case ? thanks for your input.

                ed


----------------------------------------------------------------

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thu Jan 29 2004 - 15:24:53 CST