opinion: File Systems internal drive vs disk array
DBAsupport.com Forums - Powered by vBulletin
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: opinion: File Systems internal drive vs disk array

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    510

    opinion: File Systems internal drive vs disk array

    Since I am the lone DBA in my company, I would like to bounce some decisions i need to make. I am setting up a 2 node RAC on HP-UX and my question is about placement on the NON raw files and diretcory structures. Specifically, whether to place certain directory file systems on the HP boxes internal drives or on the external disk enclosure. The internal drives will be R0+ 1. The external disk enclosure will have a mixed bag of raw devices and file systems, all RAID0+1.

    So, in your opinion, where would you put the following file systems?
    Server internal drive or External disk array?

    /oracle (for node 1) oracle binaries (instances will NOT share)
    /oracle (for node 2) oracle binaries (instances will NOT share)
    /archive_thread1 archive logs for thread1
    /archive_thread2 archive logs for thread2
    /backup_thread1 - misc backups NOT rman
    /backup_thread2 - misc backups NOT rman
    /backup - RMAN backups to disk prior to going to tape
    /export
    /data - This is basically the output of UTL_FILE dir

    Much thanks for your opinion!
    Frank

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    greenwich.ct.us
    Posts
    9,092
    Everything on array. Always. Makes it much simpler to swap out or add a box. I configure all servers with mirrored boot drives for the OS & Swap and have everything else on the array (except for /etc/oratab).
    Jeff Hunter
    marist89@yahoo.com
    http://marist89.blogspot.com/
    Get Firefox!
    "I pledge to stop eating sharks fin soup and will not do so under any circumstances."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    510
    If the binaries are going on the array then I might as well share them. True?

    If the archive logs are on the array, perhaps it should be one file system instead of two? I will then name the archive logs with the thread number if in the same file system. You agree?

    boot, os and swap will indeed be mirrored.

    TYVM!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    greenwich.ct.us
    Posts
    9,092
    Originally posted by gopi
    If the binaries are going on the array then I might as well share them. True?

    Sure.


    If the archive logs are on the array, perhaps it should be one file system instead of two? I will then name the archive logs with the thread number if in the same file system. You agree?

    depends on the archive redo log activity. I wouldn't want my archiver to wait if the disk was really busy. Also, I would keep a closer eye on the free space in the log_archive_dest as I would end up hanging two instances if it filled up. If I were putting them on the same filesystem, I would probably put them in seperate directories.
    Jeff Hunter
    marist89@yahoo.com
    http://marist89.blogspot.com/
    Get Firefox!
    "I pledge to stop eating sharks fin soup and will not do so under any circumstances."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    over the hill and through the woods
    Posts
    995
    RAC BAHH Hot standby all the way.
    take a look see at this article. (someone posted this before and it's a very good read)
    Oracle it's not just a database it's a lifestyle!
    --------------
    BTW....You need to get a girlfriend who's last name isn't .jpg

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    510
    Originally posted by OracleDoc
    RAC BAHH Hot standby all the way.
    take a look see at this article. (someone posted this before and it's a very good read)
    This is indeed a very good article!

    Not every shop needs RAC but I think we are one that does. Hot standby would failover very well but we need the load balancing and horizontal scalability too. The app we are cloning is very hybrid (OLTP and DSS). We can use the load balancing features and also hard wire certain monster jobs to the instance of our choice. (of course we would have to manually failover anything hard wired should that instance fail.)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    over the hill and through the woods
    Posts
    995
    I don't know gopi, I'm just an advocate for less moving parts the better. These days with arrays and caches, load balancing at the database server level shouldn't be an issue. Setup the standby and just let it run.
    Now if you've got an application server to deal with that's a different story. Being able to have more than one app server that the clients can connect to would be nice for load balancing purposes.
    Oracle it's not just a database it's a lifestyle!
    --------------
    BTW....You need to get a girlfriend who's last name isn't .jpg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width