Re: Datafiles accross multiple disk

  • From: Paul Drake <bdbafh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bunjibry@xxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:55:49 -0500

Here is a place to start:
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/
subscribe to "Storage" magazine with an email address from which you
don't mind some spam.

Here is a benchmarking tool:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/iometer

I remember a tool named "IOZone" that I think was developed by Intel.

"The Storage Performance Council announced the first industry-standard
storage benchmark of its kind for direct attach and network storage
subsystems. The new benchmark, dubbed SPC-1, gives customers a
vendor-neutral process to compare and configure storage subsystem
technology."
I don't think that SPC-1 lived up to its promises.

Wild !@#$ guess:
More than likely, your internal hard drives are direct attached SCSI
RAID, more than likely using an integrated on-board RAID controller
with 128 MB of memory. If there is more than one internal channel,
that memory is divided up per channel, and defaults to 50% read/ 50%
write. In effect, you have a 32 MB read cache. The RAID volume is a 3
disk RAID 5 with a stripe size of 32 KB. Scattered reads are so slow
due to requiring 4 stripes to be read to satisfy a
db_file_multiblock_read_count of 16.
Competition of LGWR, DBWR, CKPT, ARCH for IO is fierce.
Redo wastage is likely high, as you only have one filesystem for
online redo logs, controlfiles, datafiles, tempfiles and archived redo
logs.
Write caching helps somewhat, the read cache is practically useless.
All in all, your IO performance off of your internal storage is less
than optimal.

More than likely, your external hard drives reside in a unit that is
mounted via Fibrechannel via a single 2 Gbps fibrechannel host bus
adapter. The external unit has >= 1 GB of cache. It has 8 disks (or
more) in a RAID 10 volume with a stripe size of 256 KB (or larger).
One stripe needs to be read to satisfy a request of 16 * 8 KB blocks
(full table scans). Read-ahead is configured such that table scans are
throttled on the FCHBA, not on the physical disks.
Table scans now fly for tablespaces whose datafiles have been moved to
the external unit.
Or not. Who can tell, as the information on hardware is non-existent
from our end.
The point is that larger volumes with larger stripes over larger
numbers of disks (hopefully not larger disks) are better suited to
supporting a data warehouse where table scans dominate.

One way to tell the speed is to predict it based upon hardware 
LEAST (
(# of writes/unit time * average write size + # of reads/unit time *
average read size) /  (# of operations per second that SCSI RAID |
FCHBA supports),
#IOPS per drive * # of drives)

or measure it (see IOmeter link above).
Have you at least configured statspack or examined v$filestat?
group by the mount point, joining v$datafile to v$filestat to see file
stats by mount point.
this info is available via the standard statspack reports.

When you say "DW" - I would think that you'd be talking about hundreds of GB.
Filesystems can perform poorly when free space is below 5% as finding
free space becomes an issue - think dictionary managed tablespaces,
uet$, fet$ and all that recursive processing required to support it,
that thankfully we no longer have to deal with.

I think that you need to discuss the server configuration with your SysAdmin.
If you are the SysAdmin, start back with the Oracle Concepts manual
and look toward offloading storage management to a logical volume
manager. 10g ASM may or may not be good for you as you upgrade this in
the future, but I believe that it was designed with you in mind (I
hope that doesn't come off the wrong way).

relevant piece of info to include next time would be:
external storage cabinet make/model
adapters/controllers
volume stripe sizes
cache
db_file_multiblock_read_count
db_block_size

hth.

Paul








On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:19:10 -0700, Bryan Wells <bunjibry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All,
> 
> Newbie here again.
> 
> We are running a DW on 9.2.0.5 on w2k Advanced Server.  im trying to
> manage disk space on our currrent server.  We were down to 5GB of disk
> available on the e:\ drive as of last weekend when i moved index
> datafiles/tablespaces to the external f:\ array.  would this cause a
> perfomance hit?  is there a better best practice to have datafiles
> accross disk?  Im sure there is since im continually learning.  Also,
> im still trying to find the disk speed between the array and the
> server.
> 
> Bryan S Wells - DBA Newbie
> bunjibry@xxxxxxxxx
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: