More smaller disks or fewer larger ones?

Hi:
We're in the middle of procuring disks for a new Oracle server. We plan to stripe disks to randomly distribute I/O load across disk heads. There is some debate on whether or not we should use fewer large disks vs more smaller ones. For example, the datafiles for one schema will consume 432G. In terms of performance, would it be better to stripe 6-72G disks or 12-36G disks? Are there any other pros/cons for one scenario vs the other?
Thanks in Advance !

Generally, the more heads you have working the better so more smaller disks would be the way to go. Additionally, with smaller drives, recovery from drive failure would be faster. Of course the major drawback to this approach is that you will need bays for the drives and if you were looking at Server attached storage, you may not have enough drive bays available.
Another consideration would be the storage technology you are considering; for example, the HP EVA SANs require a minimum of 8 drives for a drive set so in your example you would need a mimimum of 8-72G disks whether you needed the capacity or not.

Similar Messages

Trade off between multiple small optimised aggregates - few large aggregate

Hi SDN community
I am asking a purely theoretical question to the sdn.sap.com community if any projects have done verifiable tests between the trade off in performance for a small number of cubes with large unoptimised aggregates, compared to that of multiple cubes with small optimised aggregates.
Will queries run faster acrosss more cubes with more aggregates that are smaller, as opposed to less cubes with larger aggregates.
We are currently trying to improve performance, and wish to get feedback on whether to change design to cater for ongoing performance issues.
Thank you for your assistance.
Simon

Hi Ravi,
Thank you for your reply.
The reason why we need to consider smaller aggregates is such:
- We have 2 value types Budget, and Forecasts in the same cube.
Because of this, we cannot restrict the aggregates to 2 smaller sized aggregates to allow performance gain.
- If we sepearate the data to the Forecasts Cube,
We have potential to create 12 Version specific aggregates
- If we create Fiscal Year Aggregates in addition, we split the size of the aggregates
Now although the roll up times will be longer, we have very targetted small aggregates so our reports should run faster.
we have consistent performance problems so i am proposing the above last major performance tuning that can be thought of, but will the performance be worth the expenditure.
Thank you.
Simon

Migrating bootable disk to a larger disk

I've been trying to move my OS from a smaller hard disk to a larger one, but I am completely stumped. I've tried using the Lenove Rescue Disk- didn't work. I've tried EasesUS to do backup - didn't work. I've tried Wondows recovery from a disk image -didn't work. In every scenario, the Lenovo bios seems to intervene to prevent making the new disk bootable. When I should get a blank screen or a windos screen, I get the Lenovo screen. It always ends with an error, such as an inability to locate the image, inability to see the media, etc.
I have an M seeries computer.
Is it possible to move my OS to a larger disk?
If so, how?

hi fitzgreen203,
Welcome to the forums.
It should be possible to migrate or clone the stock OS (say you have a stock 500GB HDD) to a bigger capacity (say 1TB).
Can you try these steps:
Option 1:
Clone / Migrate the OS from stock HDD to the new one.
- OS Migration (using Paragon Backup & Recovery Home)
- Disk Cloning (using Macrium Reflect)
Option 2:
If you have a preloaded Win8.1 OS, you can also try the following to transfer the OS only.
1. Check this guide on how to obtain a Windows 8.1 ISO (see Option One)
2. When finished, follow this guide to make a bootable UEFI Win8.1 installer via DVD/USB flashdrive and use it to install Windows (the installation should be able to detect the Windows 8.1 product key in the UEFI firmware that will let you activate Windows).
Let me know how it goes.
Regards
Did someone help you today? Press the star on the left to thank them with a Kudo!
If you find a post helpful and it answers your question, please mark it as an "Accepted Solution"! This will help the rest of the Community with similar issues identify the verified solution and benefit from it.
Follow @LenovoForums on Twitter!

PLL Library Size - Few Larger Libraries Or More Smaller Libraries

Hi
I am interested in people's thoughts on whether it is better to have fewer larger libraries or more smaller libraries. If you do break into smaller pll libraries, should the grouping be that some forms will not use modules in library, ie do not have to attach to all forms. For common modules that all forms require access to, do you achieve anything in having many little libraries, rather than on larger library?
Is it correct that pll libraries are loaded into memory at run time when form is loaded and library is attached?
What are issues to consider here
Thanks

Hi Till,
My honest opinion...do not merge the libraries. Switch between them using iPhoto Library manager and leave it at that.
A 22 gig library is way too big to run efficiently.
Lori

Few large nodes or many small nodes

Hi guys,
In general, what option is better to implement a RAC system; few large nodes or many small nodes?
Say we have a system with 4 nodes of 4 CPU and a system with 8 nodes of 2 CPU. Will there be a performance difference?
I understand there won't be a clear cut answer for this. But I'd like to learn from your experiences.
Regards,

Hi,
The worst case in terms of block transfer is 3-way, doesn't matter if you have 100 nodes a single block will be accessed at max in 3 hops. But there are other factors to consider
example if you're using FC for SAN connectivity I'd assume trying to connect 4 servers could cost more than 2 servers.
On the load let's say your load is 80 (whatever units) and equally distributed among 4 servers each servers will have 20 (units). If one goes down or shutdown to do a rolling patch then load of that will be distributed among other 3 so these will have 20 + 20/3 = 26.666. Imagine the same scenario if there was only two servers then each will have 40 and if one goes down one server has to carry the entire load. So you have to do some capacity planning interms of cpu to decide if 4 nodes better or 2 nodes better.

Mashing small clips together to make one large one!?

i figured ou thow to do this once, but now i cant remember.
i need to mesh a bunch of small clips together to make a large one so i can do a longer transition.

.. if You had some short clips and applyed a text on them.
And the text just using some spaces (no letters) then it would merge the
clips together...
never tried (.. never needed.. ), but a clever one!!
here's for you:

Copy Netware server to smaller disk?

Hello!
We have Netware server installed on 270 GB disk. We have moved majority of the data to Windows SBS 2008 server.
How can I copy Netware server to smaller disk (cca 50 GB)?
Thanks, Roman

Yes, I would like to move NW 6.5 OS from large disk to smaller disk on the same hardware (IBM x346)
"Anders Gustafsson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]..
> Roman modic,
>> We have Netware server installed on 270 GB disk. We have moved majority of the data to Windows SBS 2008 server.
>> How can I copy Netware server to smaller disk (cca 50 GB)?
>
> Same hardware? Is this just one disk. Ie, the SYS volume is on that disk?
>
> --
> Anders Gustafsson (NKP)
> The Aaland Islands (N60 E20)
>
> Have an idea for a product enhancement? Please visit:
> http://www.novell.com/rms
>

I have a 13" mac book pro with a 250 gb solid state drive and I would like to put in a larger one is this possible

I own a Mac book Pro 13" it has a 250 gb solid state drive and I would like to put a larger one in is this possible.

You don't need to partition your drive to run Fusion, only if you want to run Bootcamp.
If you have space on your Windows partition, I would suggest you backup your Windows partition, and then, delete the partition using Disk Utility.
You can now restore your virtual machine to a single volume or repartition if you prefer.
I would consider upgrading to a unibody MBP (used, refurbished will do) just to be able to access the HD. Opening the pre-unibody MBP is not something you would want to do.

I have been taking photos for years and have thousands. When I use Apple TV screen saver, it seems only to grab a handfull and repeats them. Is there a configuration setting that will allow me to have the screen saver grab more than just a few? Thanks.

I have been taking photos for years and have thousands. When I use Apple TV screen saver, it seems only to grab a handfull and repeats them. Is there a configuration setting that will allow me to have the screen saver grab more than just a few? Thanks.

The device has an 8GB drive for caching streamed meida, a small portion of that is used to temporarily store photos for the screensaver. It may vary depending on resolution etc but it seems to be around 100.

Can I replace my existng 232 GB Hard Drive with a larger one?

Can I replace my existing 200 GB Hard Drive with a new larger one?

It would help to knowwhich one of the 21 different models of MacBook you have. Some can use a 12.5mm high drive others are limited to no more than 9.5mm high. To see which model you have go to the Apple in the upper left corner and select About This Mac, then click on More Info. When System Profiler comes up check the Model Identifier.

Using sjsws to host many small servlet/jsp sites on one server

Hello. I visited the web page at http://www.sun.com/software/products/web_srvr/features.xml, which mentions that sjsws supports mass hosting of thousands of domains. Anyone knows more information about this feature? I want to find out whether sjsws is a good choice for hosting many small servlet/jsp sites on one server.
Some time ago, I tried using apache+tomcat to host many small servlet/jsp sites on one server. But the result was not satisfactory. If a private tomcat/jvm is used for each site, too many resources are consumed and as a result, not many sites can be hosted on one server. If a shared tomcat/jvm is used for all sites, the resources consumed are reduced, but it becomes very difficult to isolate the sites. Is it possible to overcome such problems with sjsws?
Thx.

Of course you dont have to use multiple VMs to host multiple applications.
You can either choose to have multiple Virtual Servers, all in one instance of the web server, serving multiple applications. In this case only one java VM is used.
Or you can go in the route posted in the link above, in which there is only one "physical" virtual server, with many dynamic virtual servers.
Whether you chose to have many multiple web applications, or do the server division in a similar way to what is described in the blog, it is up to you.
Many different web applications will give you more fine level control on the application separation, but it will probably also mean greater resource consumption associated to the web application managing.
Less web applications, but with dynamic separation, in a similar way to what is described in the blog, will give a lesser control on the applications, but will save you a good number of resources.
SJS Web Server is known to work in massive web sites, with very high number of JSPs and Servlets. There is some real life examples of this massive hosting. Maybe others can provide some numbers here :P

Init writes to disk every few seconds?

Just wondering if anyone knows why init is writing 16K to disk every few seconds. It kinda annoys me.
I'm using the standard 2.6.11 kernel -- nothing special about the daemons I'm running, either.

Try this, courtesy of Baltwo. It will delete the Spotlight V-100 index and then force Spotlight to re-index.
Be absolutely certain to only copy/paste these commands exactly. DO NOT try to type these in. One typo or wrong space in the first one could wipe your drive competely. Hit return after each.
Delete the entire Spotlight directory and reindex, running these commands in the Terminal app:
*sudo rm -R /.Spotlight-V100*
*sudo mdutil -i on /*
*sudo mduitl -E /*
https://discussions.apple.com/message/12988300#12988300

Image Mouse Overs = Small source pic to large mouse oevr

Hi
Just need to pick someones brains really ....mouse overs are
fairly straight forward if you wanna swap the same size image but
what if the mous eover image you want to display is larger ?
I figured this out years ago and now cant remember for the
life of me how to do it ...I think you edit the script dreamweaver
puts in...
So to recap ...small source image then mouse over to display
a large one...also can you re do the positioning on where the mouse
over displays ?

You can do this many ways ways -
1. Don't use swap image - use Show/Hide layer instead. Have
the alternate
image in a hidden layer that is shown when the trigger is
'tickled'. Using
this method you can have images that are any dimension.
2. Use swap image, but remove the dimensions from the
original image's tag,
i.e., change this -
<img name="original" width="150" height="220" ...
to this -
<img name="original" ...
Now when you swap in your offsize image, there is no
predefined size to
change it to. Be aware that this method may well result in an
unpleasant
and undesirable 'rearrangement' of your page layout as it
adjusts to your
new image's dimensions.
3. Pad the smaller image with canvas background color on all
sides so that
all the images *are the same size*.
4. Use a SetText behavior to change the image reference in a
container on
the page so that it will show the desired larger image in the
proper place.
You can see an example here -
http://dreamweaverresources.com/tutorials/settextoflayer.htm
5. Use the PVII ShowPic extension -
http://www.projectseven.com/
Take your pick....
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
==================
"crashpolo" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:fpjrlm$83a$[email protected]..
> Hi
>
> Just need to pick someones brains really ....mouse overs
are fairly
> straight
> forward if you wanna swap the same size image but what
if the mous eover
> image
> you want to display is larger ?
>
> I figured this out years ago and now cant remember for
the life of me how
> to
> do it ...I think you edit the script dreamweaver puts
in...
>
> So to recap ...small source image then mouse over to
display a large
> one...also can you re do the positioning on where the
mouse over displays
> ?
>

Hey. I inserted a small disk and now I cant read it or get it out! WHat do I do???

I inserted a small disk into my MacBook Pro to view and I cant get it out or read it! Is there any way I can change this???

A small disk should NEVER be inserted into any slot-loading optical drive, such as the one found in all current Macs. Your best choice would be to take it to the nearest Apple Store and get them to remove it for you, unless you're comfortable opening up your machine or poking around inside the drive slot with narrow tools.

Disk Utility: Two disks show per disk. Repair which one?

Greetings,
In Disk Utility, for every disk mounted two disks are listed. One indented under the first. The first seems to represent the physical disk, and the second the volume on the disk.
But the buttons say "Disk" in bother cases, and in any instructions, including Disk Utility help, it never indicates which one to select.
Which one should be selected when instructions say to click "Repair Disk"?
Thanks

The unindented item is the physical drive entry. The indented item is the logical volume or volumes on the drive. When only one volume is listed repairing the volume may be done by selecting either entry. However, if you have more than one volume on the drive, then you should select the specific volume you need to repair. To repair permissions you must select the volume regardless of how many volumes are on the drive.

More smaller disks or fewer larger ones?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for