RE: RAID Groups and ASM - I've got a problem, I think
- From: "Henry Poras" <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <david.barbour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Oracle_L'" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:30:48 -0500
Not sure here, but my first guess would be that the problem is from having 2
LUNs from both RG0 and RG1. Those writes are contending for the same disk. I
would try a disk group of 1 LUN from each RAID Group. I do remember reading
some stuff about using ASM to stripe across LUNs. Don't recall seeing any
actual numbers.
Henry
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Barbour
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 1:53 PM
To: Oracle_L
Subject: RAID Groups and ASM - I've got a problem, I think
Looking into a performance problem on RHEL 3.0 AS QU4 running on Dell 2850s
with 8gB RAM and dual 3.6gHz PIV processors and a fibre-attached EMC CX-500.
A simple 100000 row insert on an identical database running on a Windoze XP
desktop with 1gB RAM and internal IDE drives takes 137 seconds. On the
Linux box it takes 443 seconds!
They're using ASM, and there's one diskgroup defined for the DB, that has
six LUNS from four different RAID Groups on the SAN. I think the intent of
the folks who installed it was to try to spread the IO across as many
spindles as possible (laudable goal), but I don't think using ASM to to that
is the best solution.
Might I not have an issue with the overhead of striping across four
different RAID Groups? When I run the insert, the cpu on the box never goes
above 5% or so, but IO Waits are in the 60 - 70% range. I't's the only
activity happening on the box , period. To make it somewhat worse, the
numbers of LUNS from each RAID Group aren't consistent ( 2 from RG0, 2 from
RG1, 1 from RG4 and 1 from RG5) and the sizes, although not radically
different, aren't identical. The LUNS from RG1 are 150M vs. 166M for
RG2/4/5.
I really don't think ASM was designed (at least at this point - 10.1.0.4) to
stand in as a substitute for metaluns at the storage level.
Any thoughts?
Other related posts:
