- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Oracle on SAN disk array.
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
тАО11-25-2003 11:48 PM
тАО11-25-2003 11:48 PM
We are going to migrate a number of Oracle databases to a SAN disk array. The current configuration is traditional JBOD where the database is spread across a number of physical disks.
Any good ideas about LUNs and filesystem layout ?
My own assumptions:
- One LUN for OS.
- One LUN for Oracle binarys.
- One LUN for database tables.
- One LUN for transaction logs.
Where to locate rollback segments, control files etc. .
The databases is not very write intensive so I plan to use Vraid5.
Servers is rp2470 OS HP-UX 11i, disk array EVA 3000, Oracle versions 8.1.17 and 9iAS.
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-25-2003 11:56 PM
тАО11-25-2003 11:56 PM
SolutionIn Our environment, the OS sits on the internal disks. teh SAN is XP128 and we use RAID1 and lvm stripping on top of it.
I would recommend you take a baseline of your current performance with the usual suspects (Glance, sar, ...) and statspack for Oracle. Therefore you will be in a position to compare when we you live with your new settings.
If you can benchmark beforehand this is even better.
Rgds,
Jean-Luc
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-26-2003 12:26 AM
тАО11-26-2003 12:26 AM
Re: Oracle on SAN disk array.
The doc Jean Luc has pointed you at is a good one - SAME (Stripe And Mirror Everything) is Oracles reccomendation for all databases now - a more generic document which doesn't just focus on the XP disk array can be found here:
http://otn.oracle.com/deploy/performance/pdf/opt_storage_conf.pdf
You may need an account with Oracle Technet to read this, but thats not hard to get...
HTH
Duncan
I am an HPE Employee
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-26-2003 12:29 AM
тАО11-26-2003 12:29 AM
Re: Oracle on SAN disk array.
We have dual fibre connections from each system to the SAN, and each system has multiple redundant paths to each LUN for maximum throughput and redundancy.
HTH
mark
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-26-2003 12:56 AM
тАО11-26-2003 12:56 AM
Re: Oracle on SAN disk array.
For the EVA Array - HPUX Combo and normal/DSS/light-OLTP Oracle Storage, have your LUN's from the EVA as VRAID5's (RAID5) -- and optionally allocate VRAID1's (mirrors) for your REDO LOGS. Of course, if your I/O bandwidth need could not be satisfied by VRAID5's -- then have them presented as VRAID1's (stripe-mirrors). In our experience though - for most Oracle applications -- VRAID5's would suffice and the economics of gaining more capacity mostly defeats the cost and the slight performance of VRAID1's.
If you can, having more FC-HBA's to your EVA SAN is the most effective way in increasing I/O throughput... If you can dedicate the LUN's for Oracle REDO's on it's own HBA/FC-Channel the better. I've a server that's got 8 FC-HBA's on 1 system, LUN's are grouped and presented according to the tablespaces they will hold and on separate FC Channels... Ensure your hot tablespaces are contained on it's own LUN or LUN's.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-26-2003 01:07 AM
тАО11-26-2003 01:07 AM
Re: Oracle on SAN disk array.
We use it for our low intensity oracle apps which are on the same version as yours at this time.
I've wanted to experient with keeping the Index and Data files on different luns to prevent contention. We run our oracle data/index run pretty hard on our oltp raid 10 LUN.
Just make sure, in case you do have performance issues you can go raid 10 with data/index and redo logs, thats what oracle recomeneds. I skipped that on redo logs once and it made a big difference.
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
тАО11-26-2003 02:40 AM
тАО11-26-2003 02:40 AM
Re: Oracle on SAN disk array.
We dont allows the OS to be on a LUN for reliabilty and performance reasons (too many things that can take down a SAN and we dont want our OS to go down) - we keep the OS on local disks.
We now use micro SAN's - on your disk subsystem (wether it be XP/EMC/EVA) keep some disks aside so they are used exclusively for a LUN which you want for high performance - this is so that no other luns get to use those spindles. Probably doesnt matter so much if you dont have an intensive database.
As most LUNs today use all available spindles it doesnt matter to have different luns for oracle binaries/db/trans logs - just lump them all together unless you use a high performance micro san for some of them.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-26-2003 02:52 AM
тАО11-26-2003 02:52 AM
Re: Oracle on SAN disk array.
What I seem to be wondering in all the "recipes" - SAME, Quest, Metalink, etc.. is the often mentioned recipe -- have your REDO logs on dedicated LUNs -- to me, this is rather inpractical specially for Cache-centric arrays... What I found rather really performance boosting is to have these HOT luns be on their own FC-Channels.. What good is a superfast LUN is it is sharing FC bandwidth with the rest of the normal LUNs?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-26-2003 02:59 AM
тАО11-26-2003 02:59 AM
Re: Oracle on SAN disk array.
We found something very interesting. We set up Raid 10 luns on the array hardware, which performed pretty well, much better than the old storage. But when we took 2 of those and striped across both luns using Veritas Volume Manager, we got a HUGE performance boost, which we didn't expect. The gain was in the ballpark of 80-90%. We thought the hardware raid alone gave you almost all the performance you could get, but adding Veritas was a big help. If you can, test something like that before deciding on your final configuration.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО11-26-2003 03:07 AM
тАО11-26-2003 03:07 AM
Re: Oracle on SAN disk array.
But for very large configurations - STRIPING LUNS would always yield the best performance regardless of what Array are you using.. This is true in the following scenario: You have an Array to each HBA pair and you have several of those. I've benchmarked a huge server before that's got 8 HDS Arrays (XP512's) -- each to a pair of 2GBPS HBA links (16 All). Using VxVM DMP, my paths are protected and I have Active/Active balancing.. My FS benhmarks easily reach the maximum theorethical bandwidth of the FC's on volumes that are striped accross the 8 HDS arrays and 16 FC HBA's... It was an environment for a very large DB with large record sizes..