Re: HELP: RAID-5 Killing Performance

Consider moving the Oracle software to disk1 or disk2, the online redologs definitely to disk3. I would not archive to tape directly, this is usually too slow. Then the archiver will become your bottleneck.
For the rest the setup is adequate.

Hth,

--
Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
In2Home User <user_at_forlano.in2home.co.uk> wrote in message news:937333485.18113.0.pink.d4e11496_at_news.in2home.co.uk...
> We're running Oracle 8.0.5 on Solaris 2.6.
> Our database server is a Sun UltraSparc I 333MHz with 1GB of RAM.
> We have several disks, a RAID-5 array, and a local tape device.
>
> My DBA is utilizing the disks in the following manner:
>
> disk1 - os
> disk2 - home
> disk3 (mirrored) - archived redo logs
> disk4 (RAID-5) - control file, system, temp, oracle software
> disk5 (RAID-5) - control file, rbs, redo logs
> disk6 (RAID-5) - control file, tools, users, redo logs
>
> My largest concern is that having the redo logs on RAID-5 has
> got to be killing my performance. Ideally, they should be on a
> dedicated set of mirrored drives (then again, ideally I should have
> 22 separate disks, yeah). However, my DBA feels that its more
> important to have the archive logs on the dedicated mirrored disks.
>
> Anyone care to share their opinion as to how we might make better
> use of the above hardware setup? Would it make sense to write archive
> logs directly to tape and move the redo logs to the mirrored disks?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Chris
>
>
Received on Tue Sep 14 1999 - 13:51:13 CDT