DL380 + 2 Raid Controller + 6 Disks

[Lopez_4]

I'm quite new to servers and i plan to acquire a DL380 + 1 extra Raid controllers (6402) + 6xU320 Disks. The purpose of this server is to be hosting some Oracle Database. I want to use the internal 6i controllers to make Raid 0+1 for system partition and the extra Raid controller to create Raid 0+1 (Logs and transactions) and another Raid 5 for the Oracle database itself. Will this configuration contribute to an optimum disk performance for Oracle database ? Please advise. Thanks in advance for your help.

[Terry Hutchings]

This configuration should work fine for this purpose.

If you're getting a G4 server, then I would recommend either getting the High Performance model or making sure you get the "SCSI Configuration Kit" pn 364471-B21. This includes everything required to duplex the backplane.

[Steven Clementi · Accepted solution]

Lopez:

Assuming your getting a DL380G4, the serve comes with a dual channel Array Controller with an upgradable Cache. If you just looking to get the additional controller to be on a seperate channel then the System partition, then you really do not need it.

If you want it for true seperation of the OS and the DB/Logs, then sure, the 6402 will work out just well.


For better DB performance, it might be better to create 2 4 disk array, rather than a 2 disk array since more spindles in an array offer better I/O performance then 2. You can still allocate seperate logical drives for your logs and your DB, even better... you would not need to allocate more space than actually needed for your logs vs. if you created 1 array JUST for log files. This would give you more space for your Database.


The way your "planning" right no won't work since you would only have 2 drives left over after your Logs array, 2 drives can not make a RAID5 for the db.

Best suggestion(in my opinion):

With just the 6i, convert the dive cage to duplex, install 6 drives, 2 on channel 0 for OS and 4 on Channel 1 for Db and Logs. Create Array 1 from for the first 2 disks and Array 2 from the other 5 disks. You will be able to then create 1 Logical drive (or 2) for your OS to use and 1 RAID 1+0 and 1 RAID5 for your logs and DB from the second array(other 4 drives). Also, get the Cache upgrade.


Steven

[Steven Clementi]

HP should implement a spelling and Grammer check feature....

"For better DB performance, it might be better to create 1 4-disk array, rather than a 2-disk array since 4 sets of spindles in an array offer better I/O performance then 2. You can still allocate seperate logical drives for your logs and your DB, even better... you would not need to allocate more space than actually needed for your logs vs. if you created 1 array JUST for log files. This would give you more space for your Database.
"

"The way you're "planning" right now won't work since you would only have 2 drives left over after your Logs array, 2 drives can not make a RAID5 for the db."

"Best suggestion(in my opinion):

With just the 6i, convert the dive cage to duplex, install 6 drives, 2 on channel 0 for OS and 4 on Channel 1 for Db and Logs. Create Array 1 from for the first 2 disks and Array 2 from the other 4 disks. You will be able to then create 1 Logical drive (or 2) for your OS to use and 1 RAID1+0 and 1 RAID5 for your logs and DB from the second array(other 4 drives). Also, get the Cache upgrade."

Steven

[Steven Clementi]

Or perhaps I should go back to Previewing more often... ;o)

[Lopez_4]

That's right, I can only do one Raid0+1 and one Raid 5 with 4 drives.

Concerning Logs and DB on the same channel, is that really OK for I/O performance ?

May be going with 3 raids 0+1 (system, logs, db) might be more efficient ?. What do you think ?

Thanks for all the help.

[Steven Clementi]

I think the increase in performance using 4 disks in an array would probably outweigh, or at least negate, any negative impact of having both logs and DB on the same channel.


How heavily do you expect the DB to be used?


Steven

[Lopez_4]

DB will be heavily used at some specific time only, it wont be continuous.