Re: FileSystem (Volume) Sizes and Names (questions)

  • From: "Jared Still" <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:57:44 -0700

The latest systems for which  I have specified database storage
have volume sizes of 350G and 1.3 TB, both created as striped
and mirrored (SAME).

Jared

On 5/25/06, Hemant K Chitale <hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


A quick survey.

When you, as the DBA, are allowed to specify to the Storage team the
filesystem (volume)
sizes you want for Databases, what standards do you use ?
eg  for a database of less than 100GB,  volumes of 10GB to 20GB each
for a database of 100GB to 1TB, volumes of 100GB or 200GB each ....

If the Storage team set's up default volumes [without referring to you]
what sizes do they
give you ?

I would like "smaller" volumes [eg each mount point between 10% to 20% of
the total size,
thus 5 to 10 mount points] for the database files [of course, still using
some standard
sizes, eg 20GB  [for the 100GB databases]  across servers.  This allows
flexibility
in relocating datafiles etc.

If the underlying storage actually creates  one large Mega-LUN,  do you
still care
about the sizes of the mount points.

As an additional question, do you standardize mount-point names ?
eg  /orasys for the RDBMS binaries
/oradata1 ... /oradata10 for the database files
/redo for the Redo Logs
/archlogs for the ArchiveLogs


Other related posts: