Re: ASM, archivelogging and LUNs
- From: Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "oracledbaquestions@xxxxxxxxx" <oracledbaquestions@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 12:38:33 -0500
I have found that using different disk groups for different oracle
instances is very useful if I want to create a logical separation. It is
also useful if you are charging back storage charges to the data owners. I
generally do recommend that sort of separation, the logical advantages are
noticeable, and their arent really any disadvantages to it.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Dba DBA <oracledbaquestions@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Clusterware(2 nodes) 11.2.0.4
> DBs: 11.2.0.4
>
> 2 DBs on this this cluster. One DB will run in 1 node only due to
> excessive pinging. This is being done already. This is per Oracle Support.
> DB is migrating to us. So basing this on customer information.
>
> Per Customer DBs, both of these DBs generate significant amounts of
> Archive.
>
> 150+ GBS/Day for the db going to 1 node
> 60+ GBs/day for the DB going to 2 nodes.
>
> Right now I have 1 LUN for both DBs. Would having separate ASM Disk groups
> for each of these spread over the same LUN do anything to help performance?
> LUNs are logical so they don't tell me how the DBs are mapped to the
> backplane. This is a very large data center environment (2000+ Oracle DBs),
> these means things are standardized. In the past when I work with large
> DBs, but alot less of them I can get alot of custom configuration. Such as
> many LUNs that I can use to map ASM disk groups too and then working the
> Storage Team to map the logical LUNs acrss the back plane of the SAN(I have
> no idea how they do this, I just work with them. We usually work off a
> spreadsheet and they do it, I just tell them the I/O foot print which I get
> from the DB).
>
> Is there any value in multiple ASM disk groups on the same LUN? Before I
> go back to the storage team with questions, I want to make sure I
> understand how this works better so I know what to ask. In a very large
> environment, getting one off special configurations is asking for alot.
> Non-standard is alot harder to support.
>
> I know some of you know alot more about Sys Admin/Storage than I do. I
> dont want to waste the Storage teams time. Sorry for the vageries of this
> post, but I'm really not sure what to ask. I would wait to see that it is
> necessary, but I want to make sure I really understand what is going on
> 'outside of the DB at the SAN level'.
>
--
Andrew W. Kerber
'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
Other related posts:
