RE: Using NetApp Filers for a DWH
- From: DENNIS WILLIAMS <DWILLIAMS@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:06:27 -0500
One issue I haven't heard anyone mention is the network link. My
understanding is that the link should be dedicated (separate network card /
ip address), and as fast as possible. My experience is meager and several
years old, but my impression is that sometimes a slow network connection can
cause performance problems with these devices.
Dennis Williams
DBA
Lifetouch, Inc.
"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means
doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case,
the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
-- C.S. Lewis
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Binley Lim
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:41 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Using NetApp Filers for a DWH
I agree that it's not a RAID-4 problem (or even WAFL), because the OP said
this particular problem did _not_ reproduce on 9.2.0.4.
Cannot be a 10g-specific problem either, or you would know...
So it could be an Oracle/NetApp combination (and assuming NFS) problem? ...
or the OP missed something?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Zito" <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: Using NetApp Filers for a DWH
>
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
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:
