Home -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: SSDs and LUNs

Re: SSDs and LUNs

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:39:26 +0000
Message-ID: <LOXP123MB0086CE3926082C9DDED12F40A5420_at_LOXP123MB0086.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> 







At some layer between Oracle and the silicon the various software components will have some queues.  If there is a layer at which you have a single queue to each LUN you will have an I/O bottleneck when you've got lots of Oracle processes trying to read from just 2 (or 4) LUNs.



I'm not an expert with stuff that far away from the Oracle software but I would be a little surprised if you got bad performance because you were configured as 40 LUNs, while I have seen bad performance from a system where the solid state SAN had been configured as just 2 LUNs (one for data, one for redo).




Regards


Jonathan Lewis





From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org> on behalf of Ram Raman <veeeraman_at_gmail.com>
Sent: 19 October 2017 06:49:23


To: ORACLE-L


Subject: SSDs and LUNs



We are moving one of the systems to vm. The consultants who have been hired to do the implementation are recommending that we create just 2 or 4 'LUNS' for data diskgroup for the db that is 3Tb in size which exhibits hybrid IO. They are promising it is best rather than having 30 or 40 LUNs since the new disks will all be SSDs.They are claiming that it will perform better than having 40 'LUNs'.  I still have the 'old way of thinking' when it comes to IO. Can someone confirm one way or other, or point to any paper. thanks.



Ram.



--





--



http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu Oct 19 2017 - 08:39:26 CEST












Original text of this message