Re: Oracle 8 on NT

peterw_at_trinitysoftware.com.au (Peter Winters) wrote in <newscache$vx95of$sqa$1_at_news.iig.com.au>:

>got performance gains with the data warehouse, most likely due to a
>better hard drive system (Mylex extreme RAID 32Mb cache), and greater
> [ . . . ]
>need to be placed on separate drives. In all but one DB system we
>utilised the 5 drive arrangement as spec'd by OFA. This allows you to
>divide RBS, Data, Indexes, Logs, Temp tablespace on to seperate drives.
>
>goofnut <goofnut_member_at_newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:85dkde$14dv_at_drn.newsguy.com...
>> I am trying to find if anyone has any experience dealing with Oracle 8
>> on Windows NT. [ . . . ]

i agree with everything peter the ozzie says, except: ofa storage layout does nothing special for you w/r/t performance, if your entire disk farm is running raid-5 (striping). with just one massive bit-bucket, the various file systems are really different collections of stripes on the same set of disks. hence, the file systems are not separate as you say. in fact, moving data across raid-5 file systems just waves the heads; this is exactly the opposite of ofa's traditional advantage.

it is possible to have 5 different raid controllers with 5 dma channels to the main memory; but even big enterprise servers rarely do. if so, ofa still works as advertised. --
dave mausner (raid-9) (flame-proof) Received on Tue Jan 11 2000 - 00:22:33 CST