- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 12:25 PM
тАО12-12-2002 12:25 PM
One large filesystem vs. several smaller
Any suggestions or reasons I should go with one approach over another?
Thanks in advance,
Brian
<*(((>< er
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 12:06 PM
тАО12-12-2002 12:06 PM
Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
I would suggest to go with multiple ( but not several) file system approach.
I would also configure the volume groups and file systems based on the type of activity. For ex., create two file systems that do only sequential IOs, two random, two mixed etc., . Have your vendor (or you) carve the LUNs (RAID5 units) on different Raid groups and configure them into the volume groups so that one type of activity will not interfere with the other. Have your DBAs place the datafiles accordingly.
-Sri
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 12:08 PM
тАО12-12-2002 12:08 PM
Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
However, with today's disk arrays with large amounts of cache, it is not necessary to break the data into small file systems to get preformance.
Whether you need to use small file systems depends on the size of your disk cache and how the disks are configured to the system.
HTH
Marty
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 12:39 PM
тАО12-12-2002 12:39 PM
Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
Most storage vendors don't understand how to optimize oracle performance anyway. Their disk array tests commonly use RAID 5. They then claim that this provides optimal performance.
Few go into the depth and details. Would the oracle database perform better if the index and data files were on seperate filesystems? Little testing has been done. Most administrators don't have time to do it.
We did spend some effort to performance test.
We found little difference in performance between having all the data on one RAID 1/0 filesystem versus breaking them up. Thus, we decided on the larger fs to make things easier on the dba.
Not that we are as big as you. Our data drive is about 30G in our new L2000 servers.
Steve
Owner of ISN Corporation
http://isnamerica.com
http://hpuxconsulting.com
Sponsor: http://hpux.ws
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux
Founder http://newdatacloud.com
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 12:40 PM
тАО12-12-2002 12:40 PM
Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
Since you indicate that this ia an Oracle database filesystem, I assume that the number of files within the filesystem isn't a performance issue when searches are made through the directory trees. Therefore defining one filesystem or several is immaterial from that standpoint.
My personal preference, however, would be to use several mountpoints (filesystems) instead of one large one. From a backup and recovery standpoint it might be easier to manage smaller "chunks".
Regards!
...JRF...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 12:41 PM
тАО12-12-2002 12:41 PM
Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
It depends on your disk setup and what you hope to achieve.
We would generally use mirrored sets for oracle because it's slightly faster than raid (according to oracle & our DBA). So it keeps those parties happy.
Given that we use multiple disks and mirroring, we also have multiple controllers.
We balance the i/o load over the spindles and controllers (checked roughly every three months).
As others have mentioned spreading your data files and index files etc around can have other benefits as well.
however, this is always a trade off.
With the setup we have, it's a slightly higher administrative overhead.
Depends on what you're trying to achieve.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 12:41 PM
тАО12-12-2002 12:41 PM
Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
One reason to seperate them would be caching.
Optimally you want Oracle to cache the data & index LVs - whereas the logs & redo LVs should be OS buffer-cached.
If all these are in the same FS, you cannot apply the different mount options - they's have to all be one or the other.
Rgds,
Jeff
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 12:43 PM
тАО12-12-2002 12:43 PM
Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
The other thing to note is that all things being equal, RAID5 is not a particularly good performer although if heavily cached it may be fine.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО12-12-2002 03:50 PM
тАО12-12-2002 03:50 PM
Re: One large filesystem vs. several smaller
Is it one large tablespace that everyone hits with multiple datafiles?
Do you have indexes split off?
Do have radically different concurrent processes going on.
e.g. Order Entry vs. Purchasing?
Are you primarily READING or WRITEING data?
I wouldn't about number of filesystems. It is number of spindles/ drives that is important. e.g. you could put 5 filesystems on one drive ... or 5 filesystems on 15 drives. The 15 drive option, if the drives are the same speed, will be faster.
So to answer your question. For ease of use I would just use a single file system... I am surprised you don't see any improvement off of splitting the data, but to do that properly there are a bunch of stats I would need. (e.g. archiving status, redo logs, file systems, read/write stats of the tablespaces.)
Steve