Re: Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )

  • From: JApplewhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:30:31 -0500

That must have been the problem.  Since the XP512 was configured by HP and 
the mountpoint to LUN mapping is still not understood by our SysAdmiins, 
the single mountpoint database must have been sitting on only 2 or 3 LUNs, 
hence getting throttled.  Spreading the DB across lots of mount points 
just increases our dumb luck of getting spread across more LUNs.

Thanks for the info.

Jack C. Applewhite - Database Administrator
Austin (Texas) Independent School District
512.414.9715 (wk)  /  512.935.5929 (pager)

 I feel so unnecessary.  -- Rufus Thomas
               ( "Do the Funky Chicken")

"Keith Moore" <kmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
09/11/2006 11:07 AM
Please respond to

Hitachi 9000 (was RE: 2GB or not 2GB )


Can you elaborate on this or point me to a source? I am working for a
large company that uses Hitachi SANs and we are getting HORRIBLE
performance for a data warehouse (i.e. 15 minutes to scan a 100 MB table).

The server people and SAN people are both in separate organizations and we
do not have much information, other than what they provide. They tell us
that "all is well".

Any help would be appreciated.


> ...right, an hitachi 9000 series (OEMed). This things are famous for
> throttling back I/Os on a per-LUN basis.... but that has nothing to
> do with the number of writers.
> --
> //

Other related posts: