ASM and SAN Layout
- From: ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:15:06 +0000
I asked a similiar question a couple of weeks ago. I have done some more
reading and have some additional questions. Here is what I am considering:
1. One bigfile tablespace for my data and one for my indexes. Is this
appropriate?
2. Is it preferable to create one diskgroup for each LUN? Or is one diskgroup
per the following more appropriate
bigfile tablespace with my data
bigfile tablespace with my indexes
bigfile tablespace with my metrics/logging data
system tablespace
sysaux tablespace
undo tablespace
redo
undo
arcive logs
3. Should I keep all of the above on dedicated spindles? I was told that since
redo and archive logs do serial writes and data files do random reads and
writes, performance is better if these are on seperate dedicated spindles? What
about seperating out my indexes from data on different spindles? Along with the
rest of them?
It appears that the major advantage with ASM for me would be the reduction in
datafiles to manage. Anyone familiar with the AOL project that adopted ASM
early? Oracle sent us a powerpoint presentation by Grant McAlister at Amazon.
He found that moving to ASM significantly reduced the number of datafiles they
had to manage and it reduced their maitenance effort. Anyone else find this?
Other related posts: