Re: Storage array advice anyone?

  • From: Martic Zoran <zoran_martic@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Oracle-L <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 06:44:26 -0800 (PST)

Is that not similar to what Oracle (Larry E) wants on
the database level, to centralize everything into one
piece and just average everything across that one
piece hoping that with some resource manager/smart
logic you can force some inequality?

Is that not as what UNIX/Linux/NT is doing with CPU's?

It only looks that the storage piece is still not that
mature in global. Or I missed something?

Zoran Martic

--- Matthew Zito <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, I'll agree with your later posting that a lot
> of vendors have 
> jumped on the virtualization bandwagon and I'll
> agree that a lot of the 
> virtualization products offer little or no value. 
> For example, the sun 
> 6320 is described as a virtualizing array, when the
> real benefit seems 
> to be that you can span management across several
> smaller arrays (but 
> not span storage devices!).
> When I'm talking about virtualization, I am talking
> about using large 
> numbers of spindles to satisfy I/O, and in better
> examples, software on 
> the array to rebalance I/O.  In the example you
> give, its true that one 
> read could span 8 drives with a huge queue of
> pending requests, but it 
> depends on the size of the I/O and the stripe size
> configured on the 
> array, like anything else - it seems a little unfair
> to pick an 
> arbitrary example and use that as a definitive
> reason why a technology 
> is bad.
> We can look at the other case - I could have a bunch
> of RAID-10 volumes 
> and any given read could span two drives.  When I
> then have 64 I/Os 
> that are pending against that lone RAID-10 volume,
> wouldn't I be better 
> off having those I/Os against 50 disks instead of
> 14?
> And as far as sharing disks, even EMC's RAID-1
> implementation splits a 
> disk into a set of volumes and mirrors them to
> another drive.  There's 
> always the possibility of spindle contention with
> any RAID group, 
> including a RAID-10 volume.  How well an array copes
> with that is a 
> factor of workload, cache, and the
> elegance/functionality of the array 
> OS.  Like everything else in the world, quality
> makes a difference.  
> That's why I suggested that you vet your vendors
> heavily.
> Thanks,
> Matt

Do you Yahoo!? 
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.

Other related posts: