Re: Using NetApp Filers for a DWH
- From: Matthew Zito <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 02:00:40 -0400
That's not it. The RAID-4 has nothing to do with this behavior. The=20
behavior described is symptomatic of a WAFL filesystem with an=20
oversubscribed cache. Since WAFL will never overwrite an existing=20
block, but simply append writes to the next available slot in the free=20=
block list, the tablespace described will effectively be located=20
half-and-half on two different filesystem regions.
If there was enough (read: a lot) of cache in the filer, this problem=20
would be mitigated, since all of the recently modified blocks would be=20=
in cache, but overall this is definitely the worst-case situation for a=20=
Netapp.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew Zito
GridApp Systems
Email: mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cell: 646-220-3551
Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359
http://www.gridapp.com
On Aug 4, 2004, at 7:54 PM, Mogens N=F8rgaard wrote:
> I like the NetApp guys, etc. But it is really RAID-4 (no kidding), so
> perhaps that might explain one or two things? Just guessing...
>
> Mogens
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
