RE: new asm disks
- From: "Lawie, Duncan" <duncan.lawie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'Randy.Steiner@xxxxxxxx'" <Randy.Steiner@xxxxxxxx>, oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:26:56 -0400
Randy,
Mixing different sized disks is not great practice if that is how you want to
run. Ideally they will end up the same percent full ...
1* select name, total_mb, free_mb, 100*free_mb/total_mb pct_free
from v$asm_disk where group_number = 3
SQL> /
NAME TOTAL_MB FREE_MB PCT_FREE
--------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DATA1 34851 25166 72.2102666
DATA2 69711 50361 72.2425442
but you can get problems where they don't balance evenly.
However, if your intent is a straight swap, I would feel reasonably confident
in adding the new disks, allow the rebalance to get going, then dropping the
old disks.
(Mostly because it allows you to avoid the whole pain associated with your
second question.)
HTH,
Duncan.
_____
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Steiner, Randy
Sent: 23 October 2006 14:05
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: new asm disks
My asm disk group is composed of 72 gig 15k rpm disks. I have new 320 gig 15k
rpm disks that I want to add to the database, eventually replacing the existing
disk. While the disks spec to be the same speed, they were made about 2 years
apart, so I'm guessing there is still a difference in performance.
Question 1, is it still ok to add the new disk to the existing diskgroup and
rebalance the old disk out?
Question 2 would it be better to create a new disk group and then figure out a
way to move the tablespaces to the new diskgroup?
Thanks
Randy
==============================================================================
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications
disclaimer:
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
==============================================================================
Other related posts:
