- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Oracle and LV
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
тАО06-29-2004 01:07 AM
тАО06-29-2004 01:07 AM
Oracle and LV
We must have three LV on different spindles in which move all datafiles.
There are three different scenarios:
1)
LV1=Index1+index2
LV2=Data1+Data2
LV3=system+redo+rbs+temp
2)
LV1=data1+index1
LV2=data2+index2
LV3=system+redo+rbs+temp
3)
LV1=data1+index2
Lv2=data2+index1
LV3=system+redo+rbs+temp
There are 2 type of data (data1+data2) that offen we have to join
We suppose oracle sorts in RAM
DB istance is a 'DSS'
Which configuration should you choice?
I hope this question isn't off-topic...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2004 01:20 AM
тАО06-29-2004 01:20 AM
Re: Oracle and LV
I dont get the " nust have thress LV on different spindles", how are you managing that with lvm unless you put them (spindles=pv?) in different VGs.
My solution would be "Stripe!!!"
But alternatively I would choose scenario 3
All the best
Victor
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2004 01:30 AM
тАО06-29-2004 01:30 AM
Re: Oracle and LV
Oracle recommends raid 1 or raid 10 for data and index.
Take that into account, this is an opportunity, not a problem.
SEP
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
тАО06-29-2004 01:36 AM
тАО06-29-2004 01:36 AM
Re: Oracle and LV
LV1=PV1
LV2=PV2
LV3=PV3
PV1=LUN1=disk1+disk2+disk3+disk4+disk5 in RAID5
PV2=LUN2=disk6+disk7+disk8+disk9+disk10 in RAID 5
PV3=LUN3=disk11+disk12+disk13+disk14+disk15 in RAID 5
Raid (and striping) is menaged by storage
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2004 01:38 AM
тАО06-29-2004 01:38 AM
Re: Oracle and LV
EMC wrote on your white papers RAID 5 on clariion based on 5 disks is very fast so its performance is similar than RAID 1.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2004 01:54 AM
тАО06-29-2004 01:54 AM
Re: Oracle and LV
Of course RAID5 well done has similar perfs... more LUNs does improve performances.
Also you havent mentionned how they will be connected 2 scsi controllers? 4 scsi controllers 2 FC?
Depending on your answer can I tell you what I would suggest if you are looking for performance otherwise go ahead...
All the best
Victor
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2004 01:54 AM
тАО06-29-2004 01:54 AM
Re: Oracle and LV
http://metalink.oracle.com/metalink/plsql/ml2_documents.showDocument?p_database_id=NOT&p_id=30286.1
Personnaly, I would go for third possibility, and think having LV3 on RAID1 would be better
Regards,
Fred
"Reality is just a point of view." (P. K. D.)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2004 02:09 AM
тАО06-29-2004 02:09 AM
Re: Oracle and LV
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2004 02:33 AM
тАО06-29-2004 02:33 AM
Re: Oracle and LV
I better now, since you have powerpath you hope to dynamicaly balance the load through the 2 HBAs so in that case no need (theoretically that is...) of stripping...
I must say that my experience has proved that more you have luns better are your throughput (but that doesnt mean create tons of small ones...).The machine here that has the best throughtput is configured with luns in the same VG coming from different arrays.
So even if EMC says... I would create 3 luns/per array and pick one of each that I would put in a volume group, you would end up with 3 VGs having 3 pv from 3 different arrays.
Up to you after if you want to create just one FS in the VG or one for the data and one for the indexes (my choice).
Oh I have some stats:
On a HDS9980V 2 partions from a IBMp650 accessing the bay both having the same oracle database (one is for test) of about 200GB the first box has it in one vg/1lv/1pv
the other with 3vg and a total of 12 pv
The same (big) query take 40min on the second
and more 2 hours on the first. they both have the same HBAs and go to the same switch and have dynamic loading. Unfortunately the first is the production but Im pleased I had nothing to do with this configuration...
All the best
Victor
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2004 04:06 PM
тАО06-29-2004 04:06 PM
Re: Oracle and LV
I'm with the others here, in suggesting striping the disks together as a first choice, and #3 as alternative. I would just use extent based striping (with /etc/lvmpvg file and lvcreate -L NNNNN -D y -s g -n lv.. vg..)
The main reason for my reply is to ask why you would 'bother' with LVM for 1PV -> VG -> 1 LV configurations? What value is LVM adding besides potentially nicer naming and more CPU overhead? Kindly explain why not simply create a filesystem on the PV device itself?
(Future growth? software mirroring? ...)
Regards
Hein.