RE: How would you layout the files?

  • From: "Smith, Steven K - MSHA" <Smith.Steven@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <moabrivers@xxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew Kerber" <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:47:34 -0700

Storage abundance?  What's that?

 

We're always making compromises for storage restrictions.

 

Steve Smith

Desk: 303-231-5499

Fax: 303-231-5696

 

Steve Smith

Desk: 303-231-5499

Fax: 303-231-5696

________________________________

From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 3:26 PM
To: Andrew Kerber
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: How would you layout the files?

 

 

The no RAID option is definitely old-school and I realize I am dealing
with some old-school thinking.  I guess I've been spoiled over the last
many years with storage abundance that this one throws me back to the
old days (even then, I had Sun boxes with abundant enclosures).  I know
redo logs are nice and sequential, undo is a huge read/write monster,
and everything else is somewhere in between.  It's balancing the
sequential reads versus the scattered reads.  Hopefully, this client
will see the light and the red tape will be cut to get a better system
with appropriate storage.  My current production environment is
clustered HA storage, multipath fiber, RAC, blah, blah, blah (paid a lot
for the multi-blahs by the way).  So having been with that for a while,
it's odd seeing this single box approach with a database that nearly
approaches the disk size of each individual disk.  Perhaps, they can get
the 300GB option if only to delay space issues. Sigh.

 

 

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I would say you are back to the old fashioned options.  Dont raid the
remaining drives, you dont have enough drives for that.  Mirror the
redo, control files, and archive logs, then distrbute everything else
the best you can.  Put the undo on drive that otherwise has very little
activity

 

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Brian <moabrivers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Say you have a client that for political reasons only bought 1 single
server with 6 internal disks (the first 2 of which are RAID-1'd for the
OS).  Because you cannot apply any reasonable sense that the client
should really look for better server/storage options (i.e., change the
client's mind), how would you install Oracle 10g Enterprise Release 2?
The underlying OS is Windows 2003 Enterprise Server 64-bit and the
hardware is Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 8GB RAM. The disks are 15K 160GB
disks.  The actual db size is 100GB with about 100 end users and a peak
redo rate of less than 100K/second.  Again, you cannot tell the client
to purchase new storage or a better server.  So working with what you
have, how would you RAID the remaining disks and layout the Oracle
binaries, controlfiles, redo logs, archive logs (yes, archiving will be
enabled), and datafiles?  RAID options to RAID-10 are available. Emails
offering RAID-5 solutions will be auto-deleted. :)

 

Looking forward to the discussion,

Brian





-- 
Andrew W. Kerber

'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'

 

 

Other related posts: