Sanity check. Am I overthinking / overteching the issue.
Moving to a new server. Current server has the storage internal, 6 drives
configured into a RAID 10. Overall performance is good, but, reads I think
could be a bit better. Most of my waits on my biggest "waits" is for scattered
file reads.
I have 45 gig of data files and 25 gig of index files. The current RAID10
holds all my files, redo, etc. Just on different logical volumnes.
So, the new server has 12, 600g, 15K spin SAS drives. It also has 2, 300gig
15K sas drives. My plan is to put my redo log groups on the 300 gig drives,
one group per drive, along with a control file copy. That way redo has its own
spindles.
Of my 45 gig of data files, one file is 12 gig and contains a single tablespace
with a single table. It's basically my audit table for all actions from within
the application. Every application action gets logged to that table. About 25
mill rows that I keep trimmed. Has a matching 12 gig IDX file.
I'm debating between three configs, trying to figure out what gives me the
better "read". I estimate that about 70% of my system actions are reads. Lots
of small random writes. No bulk loads. For instance my audit log gets about
65000 inserts a day. There would be another 130K or so inserts to the other
tables to drive that audit trail.
Config A
Create a RAID10 with all 12 drives. 6 pairs of RAID0 which then stripes to make
a 3.2tb disk pool. Logical volumes to separate the files, ie, data to one
volume, idx to the other.
Config B
Create 3 separate RAID10's, each with 4 drives. Put all my DATA files (minus
the one large datafile) on one RAID 10 and IDX on the other RAID 10. The Third
RAID 10 would contain the separate data/idx for my largest table as well as the
FRA.
Config C
Same as B except all data to one raid, all idx to the other raid, and FRA to
the third array.
Old school was that you wanted your data drives to not compete with the index
drives so that reads/writes were occurring concurrently on a data/idx file.
Thoughts...or am I overthinking?
Thanks..
