From: Jolet, John (John.Jolet@MISYSHEALTHCARE.COM)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 11:29:46 EDT
even if it's on a raid10 or raid5? where's the risk? the reason you want
multiple disks is for failure and performance (multiple spindles), both of
which you have with the array....why does extra filesystems (likely to end
up on the same disks anyway) buy you?
-----Original Message-----
From: J&D Jones [mailto:jdjones@BRIGHT.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:22 AM
To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: Filesystem
I've been both DBA and SA, and I agree with Gene. If concerned with both
performance and spreading around the risks, a single large filesystem is bad
news.
Janis
Gene Sais wrote:
> Not sure where you got your DBA's, but I never heard of having your oracle
datafiles, redologs, temp, index, data on 1 huge filesystem. Time to send
the DBA packing to:
>
>
http://education.oracle.com/web_prod-plq-dad/plsql/show_desc.redirect?redir_
type=3&p_org_id=&lang=
>
> Also, a good white paper (one of many) on Oracle Filesystem Layout:
>
> http://www.dbatoolbox.com/WP2001/appsinstall/apps_config_optimal.PDF
>
> hth,
> Gene
>
> >>> JNguyen@WM.COM 07/31/02 10:00AM >>>
> We have oracle database servers using ESS storage (F20); we setup
multiple
> filesystems for data files/control files/log files. DBAs recommend to
> create one large filesystem for all data files/control files/log files for
> less administration. Filesystems span multiple LUNs and LUNs are on
> multiple 8-pack (SSA adapter). I am still favor in multiple filesystems.
> Please share your thought!
>
> Joseph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 22:16:06 EDT