- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: ORACLE 9i needs mount pints on VA7410
Operating System - HP-UX
1752618
Members
4506
Online
108788
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
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
юдл
back
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
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Go to solution
Topic Options
- 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
тАО08-08-2003 10:15 AM
тАО08-08-2003 10:15 AM
During a meeting with DBA, he asked for DB space 8 G with separate mount point A (4 G) for Data and mount point B (4 G)Index for performance reasons (ORACLE suggested separating Index/Data to reduce disk access conflicts).
However, since we are talking about VA7410 here, isn't LUN is not a physical disk anymore ? if we allocate a mount point /oracle with 8G and create sub directory /oracle/data and /oracle/index,it would scatter around the VA anyway and would achieve the same objective of reducing disk access to the same spot?
Or it makes sense to create 2 separate 4G mount points (LUNs) on the VA7410 as suggested by DBA ?
Thanks!
However, since we are talking about VA7410 here, isn't LUN is not a physical disk anymore ? if we allocate a mount point /oracle with 8G and create sub directory /oracle/data and /oracle/index,it would scatter around the VA anyway and would achieve the same objective of reducing disk access to the same spot?
Or it makes sense to create 2 separate 4G mount points (LUNs) on the VA7410 as suggested by DBA ?
Thanks!
Solved! Go to Solution.
2 REPLIES 2
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-08-2003 11:34 AM
тАО08-08-2003 11:34 AM
Re: ORACLE 9i needs mount pints on VA7410
good luck dispelling that notion with the dba.
It's true that the selection of mount points are not nearly important now as in the past. However, there are many caveats.
If you have more than one HBA in the server, it's possible ( but certainly not required) to split the load between the two paths. There is also great debate on how your luns and filesystems should be configured regarding size, block size and more.
With 8 gig being such a small piece of a typical SAN, I'd describe his request as without merit.
It's true that the selection of mount points are not nearly important now as in the past. However, there are many caveats.
If you have more than one HBA in the server, it's possible ( but certainly not required) to split the load between the two paths. There is also great debate on how your luns and filesystems should be configured regarding size, block size and more.
With 8 gig being such a small piece of a typical SAN, I'd describe his request as without merit.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-08-2003 11:57 AM
тАО08-08-2003 11:57 AM
Solution
Cut an SLA with your DBA team... if the filesystems that you provide them do not provide the necessary "throughput" -- then that's the only time you should be mandated to demonstrate how you carve your filesystems... Most DBA's still think the old-way... dealing and thing with physical disks -- and still demanding that RAID5 be avoided ANYWHERE at all costs! We are/have been using RAID5 LUN's from our Hitachi Frames that we stripe(RAID0) or RAID5 further (for added protection) and using them outright to build filesystems... In very large DSS/DW configurations.. I present a separate RAID5 LUN or RAID10/01 LUN on each separate channel for REDO logs and for "hot" filesystems...
Using VxVM I can move volume objects non-disruptively...
BTW, if your server is not serving multiple ORACLE instances -- then its is perfectly okay to mix DATA and indexes (data and index are not simultaneously read) .. just be mindful to continously monitor performance of each volume/filesystem and be prepared to relocate certain objects that become "hot"...
We are even experimenting with a 500GB DB that is housed in just one single super-striped volume (an 8-column on 8 HBA system...) we did however separate the redo logs... our DBA's are happy and have no issues (yet...) performance is at par or even better than having DB files on separate filesystems and volumes...
Using VxVM I can move volume objects non-disruptively...
BTW, if your server is not serving multiple ORACLE instances -- then its is perfectly okay to mix DATA and indexes (data and index are not simultaneously read) .. just be mindful to continously monitor performance of each volume/filesystem and be prepared to relocate certain objects that become "hot"...
We are even experimenting with a 500GB DB that is housed in just one single super-striped volume (an 8-column on 8 HBA system...) we did however separate the redo logs... our DBA's are happy and have no issues (yet...) performance is at par or even better than having DB files on separate filesystems and volumes...
Hakuna Matata.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP