From: Forkner, Robert (forknerr@ACU.EDU)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 14:47:51 EDT
Which can be pricey... but then again, who said Oracle was inexpensive.
If you don't have bottomless pockets, and you just sunk everything you had
into simply purchasing Oracle, purchasing dedicated disks for redo logs, and
multiple filesystems, then to require that they are redundant by having them
mirrored (RAID 5 is less expensive per GB of storage, but then you end up
filling up your disk controllers faster requiring you to purchase more
hardware to house more disks). Oracle itself says that if you have the
ability, make 18 spindles (e.g. 18 seperate databases (e.g., one per
filesystem)) and then mirror them ... thats 36 disks (and that's assuming
you won't have any databases span across multiple pdisks). I guess all I'm
trying to say is that, everyone is going to have different circumstances,
and while ideally you might want one thing, you may only able to implement
another.
I don't know what's driving your DBA's to say one filesystem, my knee-jerk
is that they are bing too simplistic. If you have the ability, you want to
segment the databases out as much as possible.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Sais [mailto:Gsais@CO.PALM-BEACH.FL.US]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:47 AM
To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: Filesystem
You can still separate the files into diff i/o paths, i.e. controllers,
raid-5 sets, etc.
>>> John.Jolet@MISYSHEALTHCARE.COM 07/31/02 11:29AM >>>
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