Re: Raid5 Vs Raid0+1 -- Raw Vs Solaris 9 Concurrent Direct IO UFS
- From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:16:25 -0600 (MDT)
Deen,
How can RAID-5 perform better than RAID-1 (especially 1+0) on reads? That's a
new one I've not heard before. Oh, and writes? Don't worry about them --
we've got caching so it doesn't matter!
<rant>
Oh yes, the old "we've got so much cache it doesn't matter". Don't believe it:
cache has to be managed (possible source of contention) and cache can be
overwhelmed. At best, cache smoothes out the spikes, but it cannot help during
a prolonged period of high activity.
I don't know why Sun thinks that there is a market for things like
file-systems, but I've heard them waste hours trying to convince folks to use
their wonderful new UFS (yawn!). At a large financial institution last May, I
participated in an Oracle-based benchmark with four scenarios: "regular" UFS
(i.e. no direct I/O), UFS with direct I/O, VxFS, and VxFS with "quick I/O" (now
called ODM). Then, for kicks, the sys-admins and I added an "illegal" scenario
-- "raw" logical volumes -- to the mix. The turd in the punch-bowl, the black
sheep of the storage family, the fifth option that none of the vendors wanted
to talk about. We boiled each of the benchmark results down to a single metric
for relative comparison, with the first option (plain UFS) at a score of 22,
VxFS with 18, UFS with direct I/O also at 17-18, VxFS with QIO/ODM at 12-13,
and "raw" devices at 9. Of course, because the use of "raw" devices were
"banned" from the competition (?), Veritas got their sale. Nevermind we were
using VxVM for the logical volumes... :-)
I count this as the best feat of marketing since Coke and Pepsi convinced
everyone that "soft drinks" are a part of daily life, adding ump-teen layers of
additional software to arrive a result that is measurably less than simply
removing the whole kit-and-kaboodle. Paraphrasing the movie "Blazing Saddles":
"File-systems? We don't need no stinking file-systems...", but often that
attitude is rather like farting at the reception.
</rant mode="scuttles back into cave, pulls stone shut">
Hope this helps...
-Tim
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
-- File: Raid5 Vs Raid0+1 -- Raw Vs Solaris 9 Concurrent Direct IO UFS
Return-Path: <oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from mail.sagelogix.com by ocs.sagelogix.com
with ESMTP id 32465831093458022; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:20:22 -0600
Received: by mail.sagelogix.com (Postfix, from userid 16)
id 2F445A85F9; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:12:44 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180])
by mail.sagelogix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4391BA85EA
for <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:12:42 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id 8405472EF75; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:17:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id 32243-30; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:17:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id 1B21072F346; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:17:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:15:38 -0500
(EST)
X-Original-To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id 2B6BC72C66A
for <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:15:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id 30855-90 for <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:15:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xmail2.state.nj.us (xmail2.state.nj.us [199.20.71.249])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id 0473872DC48
for <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:15:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail2av.state.nj.us (mail2av.state.nj.us [10.34.20.40])
by xmail2.state.nj.us (8.12.9/8.12.11) with SMTP id i7PIHVZs016591
for <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:17:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from revere.dol.state.nj.us(199.20.109.30) by mail2av.state.nj.us via
csmap
id 07825dac_f6c3_11d8_8c24_00304811e4b6_16026;
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:17:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from W00DIT7NRQ721 ([10.6.161.115]) by revere.dol.state.nj.us
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec 6 2002))
with ESMTP id <0I3000IEMLH6TI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for
oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:17:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:17:30 -0400
From: Deen Dayal <deen.dayal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Raid5 Vs Raid0+1 -- Raw Vs Solaris 9 Concurrent Direct IO UFS
In-reply-to: <00ac01c48ab5$993927f0$8459000a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-id: <0I3000IENLH6TI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Thread-index: AcSKuItdQm7LqJ43Thm15SQ9h9zK9QAANqYA
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org
X-archive-position: 8336
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-original-sender: deen.dayal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: normal
Reply-To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-list: oracle-l
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on mail.sagelogix.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Level:
We are planning to move our current database to new Hardware Sun 12k +
Hitachi SE 9970.
Our current database runs on Sun A5000 array with Raid0+1 on raw devices.
Sun engineer who is here at our site for implementation of Hitachi SE9970
suggests that we should go Raid5 ( 3 + 1P ) in the parity group as RAID5
gives better read performance than raid0+1 and any writes are going to the
cache any way, so we should not be worried about write performance. There is
16GB cache on the Hitachi. Database is going to be striped across 10 parity
groups and each parity group consists of 4 physical disks.
Our application is about 60 to 70% reads most of the time, kind of a DSS and
for few batch jobs it is 90% write and 10% read. Database is not that big
just 200GB.
He also suggested us to use UFS instead of RAW as Solaris 9 has lot
improvements in UFS especially with Concurrent Direct I/O and can perform
better than RAW.
I am wondering anybody out there with real world experience with similar
Hardware can throw some light on these 2 topics. If anybody can point any
links or documents discussing these topics, highly appreciated.
Thanks
Deen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
