FreeLists / oracle-l / Re: How many of you use S.A.M.E?

[amonte <ax.mount@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well when I read the part where he said, put your data in the outer part of
a physical disk yeda yeda yeda. I was like, what are you talking about. How
on earth do you do that? Anyone knows how can you tell a software to store
data in a specific physical sector of a disk?

I would say an ideal world and not the real world!




On 2/1/07, LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Not sure about my current customer SAN setup.
>
> But I think ASM is based on SAME! I read Juan Loaiza presentation in the
> past, certainly he made things look easy but I would say too easy. Not sure
> if he was talking about ideal world or real world.
>
>
>  On 2/1/07, amonte <ax.mount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Anyone here use Stripe.All.Mirror.Everything methology? The one claimed
> > by Mr Loaiza 6 years ago?
> >
> > Not long ago I posted to list several I/O problems I have with Storage.
> > I was told yesterday that the EMC we have is using Meta Devices, some sort
> > of SAME. I was told by the EMC guy that the SAN has 120 disks with RAID 1+0,
> > 256GB disks. In the factory it is configured with a internal stripe, 256GB
> > disk is divided into slices of 8GB. So we have 120 disks each disk with 32
> > slices.
> >
> > With that configuration you take slices from several physical disks to
> > form LUNs. He syas that this is what they call Mete Devices and usually they
> > do that only when the customer is in a hurry and needs the disks badly and
> > dont have time to make a better planning. He further said that this sort of
> > configuration he has seen response times of over 120ms and it is not
> > unusual. The porblem with our disks is that sometimes we get like 80ms
> > responsetime and most of time beteen 25 and 60.
> >
> > I wonder, is Mete Device a SAME configuration? Sure it is deadly easy to
> > configure and maintain but then we are suffering performance problems. The
> > EMC box is used by over 10 databases, from OLTP to DWH and some of them
> > Hybrid configuration. So the chance that a disk is used by all 10 databases
> > is quite easy. Wont the disk head go crazy when 10 databases is asking for
> > data in several sectors in the same disk? May the chance of that is quite
> > small however I would not be surprised that a disk is being used by 3, 4
> > databases concurrently.
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >