Multiple tenant on Exadata disk configuration

Hi,
Exadata has pre-built 2 Node RAC, ASM 3 Disk Group configured.
Please can I know what is the disk group configuration for Multi tenant consolidation on exadata.
Thanks

Since ASM actually balances across all spindles of all heads on all disks across all storage servers it actually makes no difference whether you have one or many diskgroups as long as your diskgroups are striped across all disks. This is one reason why having less diskgroups can be beneficial , as they are guaranteed to be striped across all disks in the exadata rack . If people try to modify the standard setup after installation there are high chances of them getting it wrong, dropping disks out of diskgroups and slicing them up non uniformly leading to losses in performance , availability and recovereability.

Similar Messages

Disk configuration and workflow help needed for lab video workstation

Hi All,
Setting up a video editing workstation for a research lab that will use Premeire to edit AVCHD Progressive clips (sometimes with 2 streams side-by-side, but usually single-camera) and export them to .mp4 for later viewing by video coders. We won't be using AfterEffects or adding anything to the videos other than some text (titles, maybe sub-titles).
The other purpose of this workstation is to act as a file server and backup system for other machines in the lab. Coders will be viewing the exported videos via other networked machines and working with Microsoft Office files that will be stored on the workstation's other HDDs. I'll have a physical backup drive and cloud backup via CrashPlan.
I've built a machine that is probably overkill, but the client (my wife) wanted it to be "fast," and the purpose of the machine might change in the future:
i7-4770K (overclocked a bit)
16GB RAM
Asus Z87-Pro
GeForce GTX 660
I have the OS (W7) and programs on a 256 GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD and currently have two 1TB Velociraptors to use for the Premiere workflow. I'm trying to figure out how to proceed with the purchase of the rest of the drives, and I want to keep the Premiere drives separate from the large storage drives from the lab that are networked and synced to cloud backup.
Following the recommendations for a three-disc configuration I've picked up on these forums, I could set it up like this:
C: (256GB SSD) (OS, programs, pagefile)
D: (1TB HDD) (media, projects)
E: (1TB HDD) (previews, media cache, exports)
F: (4TB HDD) (backups of media, projects, and exports and storage of other research files)*THIS DRIVE WOULD BE SHARED ON THE NETWORK
G: (4TB external HDD) (backup of F & drive that backs up to CrashPlan)
but it seems that would be a waste of the speed of the second 10k velociraptor. If I added another SSD and RAIDed the Velociraptors it would be:
C: (256GB SSD) (OS, programs)
D: (Two 1TB Velociraptors in RAID 0) (media, projects)
E: (256GB SSD) (media cache, pagefile)
but would I then need to add another dedicated HDD for previews and exports, or could I store those on the networked F: from above (which would be previews, exports, backups of media and projects, and storage of other research files) without taking a speed hit?
It seems overkill to have a dedicated drive for exports and previews (let's make that the new F:), then have them copy to the first 4TB drive (now G:), then back that up to the second 4TB drive (now H:), then back that up to CrashPlan. However, people might be accessing that network drive at any time, and I don't want that to slow any part of the video process down.
I appreciate any advice ya'll can give me!

Hi Jim,
Thanks for the encouraging response. I'm leaning toward the non-SSD option at this point.
To make sure I understand, are you suggesting I try using the Velociraptor Raid 0 in the 2 disk configuration suggested by Harm's Guidelines for Disk Usage chart? Like this:
C: (256 GB SSD) (OS, Programs, Pagefile, Media Cache)
D: (1TB x2 in RAID 0) (Media, Projects, Previews, Exports)?
Where I'm still confused there, and in looking at Harm's array suggestions for 5 or more drives, is how performance is affected by having simultaneous read/write operations happening on the same drive, which is what I understood was the reason for spreading out the files on multiple drives. Maybe I don't understand how Premiere's file operations work in practice, or maybe I don't understand RAID 0 well enough.
In the type of editing we'll be doing (minimal) aren't there still times when Premiere will be trying to read and write from the D: drive at the same time, for example during export? Wouldn't the increased speed benefits of RAID 0 for either read or write alone be defeated by asking the array to do both simultaneously?
Maybe the reason the Media Cache is on the SSD in the above configuration is because that is what will be read while writing to something like Exports? But that wouldn't make sense given Harm's chart, which has the Media Cache also located on the array....
Another question is, given that the final home of the exported videos will be on the big internal drive (4TB) anyway, could I set it up like this:
C: (SSD) (OS, Programs, Pagefile, Media Cache)
D: (2TB RAID 0) (Media, Projects, Previews)
E: (network shared 4TB HDD) (Exports + a bunch of other shared non-video files)
so I don't end up having to copy the exported videos over to the 4TB drive? Do you think it would render significantly faster to the RAID than it would to the 7200 rpm 4TB drive? I'd like to cut out the step of copying exported videos from D: to E: all the time if it wasn't necessary.
Thanks again.

Disk Configurations

I'm building a new system and have some questions about what sort of disk configuration to put together. Probably about 90% of my source will be AVCHD (more details in my earlier post). The articles on this forum are great and have been very helpful but I'm still confused. The Generic Guideline for Disk Setup talks about distributing access across as many disks as possible but then shows all configurations with more than 4 disks as placing everything except the OS, programs, and pagefile on the same RAID. A file is distributed across multiple disks in a RAID but it's one logical drive so there must be head contention if more than one file is needed at the same time from that RAID. Wouldn't a setup like this work better?
C: [1 Drive] OS, Programs
D: [RAID 3] Media, Projects
E: [RAID 0] Pagefile, Media Cache
F: [1 Drive] Previews, Exports
Would there be any problems having multiple RAIDs? In the above example, the RAID 3 would require a hardware controller and the RAID 0 could run off the ICH10R on the motherboard. Can ICH10R support multiple RAIDS (more than one RAID 0) and can a hardware controller (say, an Areca) support more than one RAID? If so, would it be better to run both the RAID 3 and RAID 0 in this example off the Areca?
To RAID or not to RAID has been helpful but I'm still not clear on everything. What are the differences between an inexpensive controller like the Areca ARC-1210 and the more expensive models which can cost 4 times as much? Obviously the more expensive controllers have faster processors and more cache but do you get 4 times the performance? I'm sure a high-end controller would be helpful if you're editing 4K files or uncompressed HD but I suspect it's not worth the expense for a mostly-AVCHD environment.
What about using RAID 0 for source media? I understand the likelihood of problems increases with the number of disks but what does that mean in the real world? I've been using my current drives (Seagate SCSIs) for about 7 years and have never had a problem. In fact I've owned computers with hard drives since the early 80s and don't believe I've ever had a disk fail on me. Of course everything needs to be backed up but how often might I be rebuilding a RAID 0 due to disk failure? Maybe I've been very lucky or maybe "they don't build 'em like they used to".
I've been using (parallel)SCSI for over 10 years but no longer believe it's cost effective. It seems like adding more SATA drives to a RAID would be cheaper than expensive 15K RPM SAS drives. Does everyone agree with that? Also, SAS drives are only available in much smaller capacities than SATA drives.
A hardware controller is required for RAID 3 and strongly recommended for RAID 5 but do they offer an advantage for RAID 0? What about for RAID 10? One advantage would be providing extra ports since most motherboards only provide 6 SATA ports. Does one motherboard offer any better SATA and RAID performance than any other or are they all about the same in that regard?
Is there any advantage to external RAIDS other than convenience in moving data from one computer to another? It seems like a controller directly on the bus would be faster than one connected externally.
Is there any disadvantage to running SATA 3 drives on a SATA 2 controller? A possible advantage might be the larger cache that some SATA 3 drives have. Would a 64MB cache help much over a 32MB cache? I've also heard SATA 3 can increase burst speeds. If I have two SATA 3 ports, and I'm using one on an SSD for the OS, would it help to use the other port for another drive or might that take away bandwidth from the SSD?
I've run across some things (don't have links handy) that indicate there may be problems with drives larger than 2 TB. Is this just for single drives larger than 2 TB, RAIDs larger than 2 TB, or am I confused and this is not an an issue?
What about specific drives that are quiet and perform well? Quietness is important to me and I worry about building a box, with as many as 10 drives, sounding like an airport runway. I've heard the Caviar Blues are quieter than the Black but I don't think they perform as well. I've heard Samsung F3 are both quiet and fast and that's what I'm leaning towards at the moment. What's with the F4? Samsung's site says it's “Independently tested as the fastest 3.5” HDD available” yet it also refers to it as an “Eco-Green HDD”, which usually means slow.
Should I use different drives in RAIDs than standalone? I've heard “enterprise” models are better for RAIDs because of differences in their firmware error recovery. These sources say “consumer” models are more likely to time-out in a RAID because they have more aggressive error recovery. Is this true and should be a concern?
Roy

I'm looking forward to an answer too, because I have some of the same questions. I'm currently working with a systems integrator on a quote, and we are hashing out some details about a few things.
I do a lot of uncompressed 10-bit, as well as some 1080p60 projects. So, for the RAID, to date, I'm going for an Areca ARC-1880ix-16. Funny thing is, there is not much price difference between the 12 and 16 port model. So I'm going to go with the 16-port model, and upgrade the cache to 4GB. Seems well worth it. I'll probably start out with an 8 disk RAID setup, and upgrade it n the future if need be.
We did toy with the idea to build the RAID around SSDs.... Ouf, imagine having an 8 SSD RAID! (Corsair SSD Force Series 3). But realistically, I'll most likely go with normal SATA III drives. And since they are so inexpensive, I'll probably fill it to the brim. Or most likely, the capacity that the case can handle.
But Roy has a good point. What about distributing the load on the array? Would it be more appropriate to make 2 RAID groups on the card? To balance the traffic of the media, cache, previews, pagefile and export?
Roy, I can start answering some of your questions though (My years of being a PC tech comes in handy sometimes, hehe)
Would there be any problems having multiple RAIDs? In the above example, the RAID 3 would require a hardware controller and the RAID 0 could run off the ICH10R on the motherboard. Can ICH10R support multiple RAIDS (more than one RAID 0) and can a hardware controller (say, an Areca) support more than one RAID? If so, would it be better to run both the RAID 3 and RAID 0 in this example off the Areca?
From a technical standpoint, there are no problems running multiple RAIDs. But there would be a performance drawback if the RAID was software only (OS managed). Thankfully, on-board RAIDs do help, but there is still some CPU overhead to deal with on-boad RAID5, and very minimally RAID 0. Having a RAID card is always the better option if you can afford it. The performance, manageability and flexibility are unmatched, compared to any on-board motherboard RAID controllers. RAID 0 is simple and does not need much resources. So, yes, you could run the RAID 0 from the on-board controller of the motherboard. It would theoretically "offload" the 8x PCIe lane from extra traffic, but practically, I seriously doubt the disk I/O would exceed the PCIe bandwidth in the first place.
What about using RAID 0 for source media? I understand the likelihood of problems increases with the number of disks but what does that mean in the real world? I've been using my current drives (Seagate SCSIs) for about 7 years and have never had a problem. In fact I've owned computers with hard drives since the early 80s and don't believe I've ever had a disk fail on me. Of course everything needs to be backed up but how often might I be rebuilding a RAID 0 due to disk failure? Maybe I've been very lucky or maybe "they don't build 'em like they used to".
I use P2 media. So I practice double copies. A working copy on the computer, the other on an external HD as a backup copy. Everyone using solid state media to record on, should do the same. Having said that. You know what RAID 0 means? Zero chance of data recovery if 1 drive fails. The more drives in a RAID, the more likely a problem can arise. Packing drives tightly together will produce more heat if not well ventilated, and will reduce the life expectancy of any drive. I have come across some bad disks in my 20+ years dealing with computers as a tech. Not that many, but enough to not trust them, and enough to practice backups even if I had a RAID 5 or 6 (and a hotsparet). Even though I have a backup copy on an external drive for my source media, and even though I try to backup as often as I can, I can still loose other things (ancillary files) in my hypothetical RAID 0 media drive. Worst case? I could loose a day's worth of work, plus what ever time it takes to rebuild and restore everything from the previous night's backup (if I didn't forget). Time is money for most of us. And investing in a proper editing system is something I don't take lightly.
A hardware controller is required for RAID 3 and strongly recommended for RAID 5 but do they offer an advantage for RAID 0? What about for RAID 10? One advantage would be providing extra ports since most motherboards only provide 6 SATA ports. Does one motherboard offer any better SATA and RAID performance than any other or are they all about the same in that regard?
There are no major advantages to use a RAID 0 or 10 on a standard addon hardware RAID controller, other then to free up ports on the motherboard, or have a higher disk count on your RAID. But higher end RAID cards with bigger cache, will be faster. On-board RAIDs do have some overhead, but for RAID0, it's not as drastic as RAID5. Motherboard SATA RAIDs, with the same chipset, for all intents and purposes, are basically the same performance. There may be small variations from one manufacturer or another, but nothing real world measurable.
Is there any advantage to external RAIDS other than convenience in moving data from one computer to another? It seems like a controller directly on the bus would be faster than one connected externally.
Convenience, is subjectively proportional to your needs and disk quantity inside the computer casing. hehe What stops me from having more then 16 drives in my system, is the casing size for HDs and possible heat dissipation issues. I try to have a system that is self contained, and avoid using an external enclosure if I can. But regardless, the speed of internal and external ports on a RAID card is the same.
I've run across some things (don't have links handy) that indicate there may be problems with drives larger than 2 TB. Is this just for single drives larger than 2 TB, RAIDs larger than 2 TB, or am I confused and this is not an an issue?
Not an issue with Windows 7.
Frederic

Would like to know if this is correct disk configuration for 11.2.0.3

Hello, please see the procedure below that I used to allow the grid infratstructure 11.2.0.3 oui to be able
to recognize mY EMC San disks as candidate disks for use with ASM.
we are using EMC powerpath for our multipathing as stated in the original problem description.I want to know if this is a fully supported method for
configuring our san disks for use with oracle ASM becuase this is redhat 6 and we do not have the option to use the asmlib driver.Please note that I have
been able to successfully install the gird infrastructure successfully for a 2 node RAC cluster at this point using this method.Please let me know if there
any issue with configuring disks using this method.
We have the following EMC devices which have been created in the /dev directory.I will be using device emcpowerd1 as my disk for the ASM diskgroup I will be
creating for the ocr and voting device during grid install.
[root@qlndlnxraccl01 grid]# cd /dev
[root@qlndlnxraccl01 dev]# ls -l emc*
crw-r--r--. 1 root root 10, 56 Aug 1 18:18 emcpower
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 0 Aug 1 19:48 emcpowera
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 1 Aug 1 18:18 emcpowera1
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 16 Aug 1 19:48 emcpowerb
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 17 Aug 1 18:18 emcpowerb1
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 32 Aug 1 19:48 emcpowerc
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 33 Aug 1 18:18 emcpowerc1
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 48 Aug 1 19:48 emcpowerd
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 49 Aug 1 18:54 emcpowerd1
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 64 Aug 1 19:48 emcpowere
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 65 Aug 1 18:18 emcpowere1
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 80 Aug 1 19:48 emcpowerf
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 81 Aug 1 18:18 emcpowerf1
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 96 Aug 1 19:48 emcpowerg
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 97 Aug 1 18:18 emcpowerg1
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 112 Aug 1 19:48 emcpowerh
brw-rw----. 1 root disk 120, 113 Aug 1 18:18 emcpowerh1
As you can see the permissions by default are root:disk and this will be set at boot time.These permissions do not allow the Grid Infrastructure to recognize
the devices as candidates for use with ASM so I have to add udev rules to assign new names and permissions during boot time.
Step 1. Use the scsi_id command to get the unique scsi id for the device as follows.
[root@qlndlnxraccl01 dev]# scsi_id whitelisted replace-whitespace --device=/dev/emcpowerd1
360000970000192604642533030434143
Step 2. Create the file /etc/udev/rules.d/99-oracle-asmdevices.rules
Step 3. With the scsi_id that was obtained for the device in step 1 you need to create a new rule for that device in the /etc/udev/rules.d/99-oracle-
asmdevices.rules file. Here is what the rule for that one device looks like.
KERNEL=="sd*1" SUBSYSTEM=="block",PROGRAM="/sbin/scsi_id --whitelisted --replace-whitespace /dev/$name",RESULT=="360000970000192604642533030434143",NAME="asm
crsd1",OWNER="grid",GROUP="asmadmin",MODE="0660"
( you will need to create a new rule for each device that you plan to use as a candidate disk for use with oracle ASM).
Step 4. Reboot the host for the new udev rule to take affect and then verify that the new device entry will be added into the /dev directory with the
specified name, ownership and permissions that are required for use with ASM once the host is back online.
Note: You will need to replicate/copy the /etc/udev/rules.d/99-oracle-asmdevices.rules file to all nodes in the cluster and restart them for the changes to
be in place so that all nodes can see the new udev device name in the /dev directory on each respective node.
You should now see the following device on the host.
[root@qlndlnxraccl01 rules.d]# cd /dev
[root@qlndlnxraccl01 dev]# ls -l asm*
brw-rw----. 1 grid asmadmin 65, 241 Aug 2 10:10 asmcrsd1
Step 5. Now when you are running the oui installer for the grid installation when you get to the step where you define your ASM diskgroup you should choose
external redundancy and then click on the change disk dicovery path and change the disk discovery path as follows.
/dev/asm*
Now at this point you will see the new disk name asmcrsd1 showing as a condidate disk for use wiith ASM.
PLease let us know if this is a supported method for our shared disk configuration.
Thank you.

Hi,
I've seen this solution in a lot of forums but I do not agree or don't like at all; even if we have 100 luns of 73GB each.
so the thing is, as in any other unix flavor we don't have asmlib***just EMCPOWERPATH running on differentes unix/linux flavors we dont like either udev-rules, dm-path and stuff***
Try this as root user
ls -ltr emcpowerad1
brw-r----- 1 root disk 120, 465 Jul 27 11:26 emcpowerad1
# mknod /dev/asmdisks
# chown oragrid:asmadmin /dev/asmdisks
# cd /dev/asmdisks
# mknod VOL1 c 120 465
# chmod 660 /dev/asmdisks/VOL*
repeat above steps on second node
asm_diskstring='/dev/asmdisks/*'
talk with sysadmin and stoadm guys to garanty naming and persistents in all nodes of your RAC using emcpowerpath. (even after reboot or san migration)

UCSM 2.1 Local disk configuration policy and raid volumes

Hi!
If i use Any configuration as local disk configuration policy and do the raid settings directly to the RAID-cards, am i able to have two raid volumes on C-series under UCSM management?
What i would like to do with C240M3 with 6 local disks: 2 disk raid1 and 4 disk raid0
So i would use:
"Any Configuration—For a server configuration that carries forward the local disk configuration without any changes."
As UCS servers Raid guide indicates:
"Maximum of One RAID Volume and One RAID Controller in Integrated Rack-Mount Servers
A rack-mount server that has been integrated with Cisco UCS Manager can have a maximum of one RAID volume irrespective of how many hard drives are present on the server. "
Is this paragraph limitation of GUI not able to set several volumes or hard fact without "Any configuration" workaround?

I did some testing about this issue:
Changed Local Disk Configuration to "Any Configuration"
Two virtual disks can be created from Raid card's WebBIOS
These disks are visible to RedHat Installation.
UCSM shows Any configuration for the Storage Local Disk policy
Actual Disk Configuration has faulty information - WebBios is the only place to check the RAID status?
Next step: I'll do the same for the production

Multiple burns on a disk using Disk Utility??

Hi,
I found these notes about doing multiple burns on a disk (see below and it mentions changing the extention name to .img so that disk utility will give you the make disk appendable option.
I understand all that but my question is will this change the ability of the file to open in a new or old Mac (I have an old iMac G3 slot loading, PowerbookPC G4, and the new intel C2D 17"? My assumption is it will be fine in a new Mac but what about my older G3? I want to burn a disc and leave it appendable but am afraid by changing it to .img it won't open in the G3.
Thanks,
S.
1. Collect the material you want to burn in a folder on your Desktop. Open Disk Utility.
2. Select Disk>New>Disk Image from the Folder menu. Use the dialog box to navigate to the folder you have created on your Desktop, and select "Image." Name your new image, select a destination for the new file, and click "Save." Your file name should end in .img.
3. Back in Disk Utility, click the toolbar "Burn" button, navigate to the disk image you just created, selected, and click "Burn." Another dialog box will appear. Click the blue triangle but in the upper right hand corner. The dialog box will expand, giving you an additional selection of options. Click "Leave disk appendable," then click the "Burn" button to initiate the burn.
4. When you want to add a subsequent burn to that disk, repeat the process described above, but in the final dialog box, you will then see an "Append" button instead of a "Burn" button. This process can be repeated until there is no more free space left on the disk to create appended sessions.

I don't know if these are helpful to your discussion.
From System Profiler;
MATSHITA DVD-R UJ-846:
Firmware Revision: FB2U
Interconnect: ATAPI
Burn Support: Yes (Apple Shipped/Supported)
Cache: 2048 KB
Reads DVD: Yes
CD-Write: -R, -RW
DVD-Write: -R, -RW, +R, +RW, +R DL
Burn Underrun Protection CD: Yes
Burn Underrun Protection DVD: Yes
Write Strategies: CD-TAO, CD-SAO, DVD-DAO
Media: No
Also an Apple KB article;
Factors that affect writing to or reading from optical media

SCCM 2012 Disk Configuration

We have purchased a Dell PowerEdge T420 with more than enough resources for our site...my main concern is with disk configuration. We will be hosting approx. 3000 Config Manager clients. We have 16 drives total in the server connected to a Dell H710P PERC
card.. Eight drives are 300GB 10K SAS and another eight are 1TB 7.2K Nearline SAS. The Nearline SAS will be used for content storage. How should I configure the other drives for OS, SCCM 2012 and SQL? My initial thought was two RAID 10 Arrays. One for OS and
CM and the other for SQL. Or Two Raid 1(One for OS and another for CM) and one RAID 10 for SQL.
Can OS and CM safely be placed on the same array? SQL will, without question, be on a separate set of disks.
Any guidance would be appreciated.
Thank You.

See the Disk Space Configuration for Site System Servers section in this document:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/scstr/archive/2012/05/31/configuration_2d00_manager_2d00_2012_2d00_sizing_2d00_considerations.aspx
In particular, the comment that follows:
"For optimal performance, it is recommended that each line item in the above table be allocated its own dedicated RAID volume. For all data volumes (ConfigMgr and database files), best performance can be achieved using RAID
10."

How to determine raw disks configured for OCR/voting disk, ASM spfile

I have a two-node Oracle 10gR2 RAC configuration using raw disks. Basically, raw disks are used for CRS's OCR/voting disks, ASM's ASM spfile and disk groups.
Is there a better way to figure out what raw disks are configured in Oracle using methods other than those shown below:
- To find out votedisk:
# crsctl query css votedisk
0. 0 /dev/ora_crs_vote1
1. 0 /dev/ora_crs_vote2
2. 0 /dev/ora_crs_vote3
- To find out OCR:
# ocrcheck
Status of Oracle Cluster Registry is as follows :
Version : 2
Total space (kbytes) : 525836
Used space (kbytes) : 3856
Available space (kbytes) : 521980
ID : 1603037329
Device/File Name : /dev/ora_ocr_file1
Device/File integrity check succeeded
Device/File Name : /dev/ora_ocr_file2
Device/File integrity check succeeded
Cluster registry integrity check succeeded
- Is there a way to figure out what disk device is used for ASM spfile?
- To find out raw disks configured for disk groups:
while connected to the ASM instance in sqlplus:
SQL> select name,path from v$asm_disk where name like 'DG%';
NAME
PATH
DG_DC_ASM_0000
/dev/rhdiskpower13
DG_DC_ASM_0001
/dev/rhdiskpower14
DG_DC_ASM_0002
/dev/rhdiskpower15
NAME
PATH
DG_DC_ASM_0003
/dev/rhdiskpower22

http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/install.102/b14203/storage.htm#BABFFBBA
and
Configuring raw devices (singlepath) for Oracle Clusterware 10g Release 2 (10.2.0) on RHEL5/OEL5 [ID 465001.1]
Configuring raw devices (multipath) for Oracle Clusterware 10g Release 2 (10.2.0) on RHEL5/OEL5 [ID 564580.1]

Internal disk configuration for oracle

Hi experts
I need some guidance for internal disk configuration for oracle
requirements are for 2 node clustered VM on linux OS OEL
the OS will be for RAC, OEM
will RAID 5 be optimal setting
this is not production env
thanks

912919 wrote:
Hi experts
I need some guidance for internal disk configuration for oracle
requirements are for 2 node clustered VM on linux OS OEL
the OS will be for RAC, OEM
will RAID 5 be optimal settingFor most definition of "optimal" the answer is "NO"
RAID+10 provides better performance.
Handle:     912919
Status Level:     Newbie
Registered:     Feb 7, 2012
Total Posts:     135
Total Questions:     74 (46 unresolved)
why do you waste time here when you rarely get your questions answered?

Optimum Disk Configuration for CS6

Hi Hardware forum members,
I have read the Generic Disk Guidelines, read the various forum threads on this topic, watched the Adobe Video2Brain videos and am still confused re optimum disk configuration for CS6 Premier Pro.
( lots of disagreemnet on HDD RAID0 versus SSD )
The video and advice from Adobe is to have a separate disk for each disk for each type of file so that you are not reading and writing from the same disk.
I rang Adobe technical support and they advised me that if I had 4 individual separate SSD's they would allocate one to the O/S and Programs, one to the Media and Media Cache which they said had to be on the same disk, one to the Project and finally one to the Export and Preview.
I then asked them if I purchased another SSD so that I had one for the O/S and Programs and then 2 x 2 in a RAID0 configuration, how would they allocate the the drives. They said they would allocate one RAID0 volume to the Media and Media Cache and to the second RAID0 volume they would allocate the Project, Export and Preview. Doesn't this contradict the advice to keep the files separate, as your Project files would be on the same disk as your Export and Preview ?
In any case, they said the 2 X 2 RAID0 configuration would give the better performance.
What do the forum members here think will be the better disk configuration from the two options above ?
What about TRIM support for SSD'S in a RAID0 configuration - is that still an issue, before I commit to the 2 X 2 SSD in RAID0 configuration.
FYI - Backup will be to 4 x 3tb Seagates in a RAID5 config and the SSD'S under consideration are the Samsung 840 Pro's.
Your thoughts and recommendations will be most welcome.
Kind Regards
Martin.

Hi Jim,
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my post - it is much appreciated.
I have ruled out the 2 x 2 ssd in raid 0 as an option due to the lack of TRIM support for this configuration as the performance would just deteriorate over time.
Your advice makes sense as everybody's individual needs and preferences are different.
I'm still going to go with a combination of individual SSD drives ( no raid and just depends how many individual SSD's I decide to allocate) with the RAID5 array of 4 x 3tb disks for backup (around 9tb usable space ). The machine wont just be used exclusively for video editing and hence this is swaying my decision towards the SSD's.
I could be persuaded to change the RAID5 backup to a RAID10 with the same disks but this would give me more speed and safer redundancy, albeit with only 6TB of usable space. ( I know the backup has nothing to do with the CS6 performance or configuration, just mentioning it ).
FYI, the machine is a desktop, not a laptop, with an ASRock Extreme 11 x79 mb which gives me enough SATA3 connections and has onboard RAID options
Other components are a 3930k processor, 64 gb 8 x 8 Corsair Vengenace 1866 c9 memory kit, and an EVGA GTX680 4G Classified Video Card.
Thanks again for taking the time to reply - much appreciated
I'm looking forward to getting the build up and running
Happy to hear anyone else's thoughts on this topic too.
Kind Regards
Martin.

Creating a default route "shared" among multiple tenants?

Hi!
I'd like to ask if it's possible to create a default route to an external L3 network that can be shared by multiple tenants?
I've tried various methods such as creating the External Routed Network under the Common tenant, but I was unable to see how it could work. Usually, for external layer 3 access within a tenant, a contract would be created between the external routed network and the desired EPG, but across tenants, I couldn't find a way to create a contract between the external routed network in the Common tenant and the EPG in another tenant.
Could someone walk me through the steps to do this? Or do I really have to create a separate External Routed Network for the default route for every single tenant?
In addition, my understanding of the "Common" tenant seems to be quite sketchy even after reading the documents; I'm not quite sure what exactly is shared by this tenant, or how we could use this tenant to provide shared services to other tenants. If anyone could give a quick run-down on how we could use the Common Tenant, that would be really fantastic.
Thank you!

Hello again,
At this time, if I'm not mistaken, the only way to accomplish this is to have All the BDs in the common tenant/VRF and the EPGs in the particular user tenant where they belong. Since you are still using only 1 VRF (the common tenant) the contract between the L3 out in common to the EPGs in user defined tenants can be a standard "private network" scope contract.
The other option if having the BDs in common is not an option, is to have an external L3 per tenant.
I tried the recreate over the weekend and was also unsuccessful in find a loophole. I thought i could implement an exported contract interface for inter tenant communication between an external epg and a user defined tenant/epg but it did not work.
Hope this helps.

Is this a "sound" disk configuration?

I'm new to using Oracle and I will soon be installing Oracle 10g Standard Edition One on a Windows 2K3 server. Would this disk configuration be considered "proper"?
Two 18gb disks Raid1(mirrored) - C Drive
This is where I will install Windows 2K3
Four 36gb disks Raid0+1 - D Drive
This is where I will install the Oracle db data.
Additional items that I'm not aware of yet.
Do you install the Oracle program on the C drive and the Oracle db data on the D drive?
Is Oracle like MS SqL server where you would write the db transaction logs to another drive than where your db data resides?
Any input appreciated.

Do not use Leopard's Disk Utility to repair disk of Tiger OS. They are different OS's and have different parameters. Nothing to query about. If you can't find your Tiger installer disk then try booting (holding command-s), when you see the white text type:
fsck -yf hit return
repeat until no errors are found. Then type:
reboot -n hit return
Again do not use Leopard to repair a Tiger disk.
Then go find your Tiger installation disk. It should be in a zip lock bag in the drawer next to your Mac.

Unattended.xml disk configuration

Hello Technet,
I am looking for a Unattended.xml hard disk configuration that removes the partitions that already exist, and create 1 new partition for the Windows installation.
I am sure that this is a frequently asked question.. but I cant find a solution for this.
The program that I am using for making a unattended Windows 7 professional is Windows RT7Lite. I would like to make 1 .iso file for installing Windows 7, with updates etc. included in the iso.
Thanks
Thanks, greetings Maurice

I do not know how RT7Lite works other than the project is pretty much in limbo or dead. Here is the XML needed to format the drive and create a single partition to span the entire disk.
<DiskConfiguration>
<Disk wcm:action="add">
<ModifyPartitions>
<ModifyPartition wcm:action="add">
<Active>true</Active>
<Extend>true</Extend>
<Format>NTFS</Format>
<Label>System</Label>
<Letter>C</Letter>
<Order>1</Order>
<PartitionID>1</PartitionID>
</ModifyPartition>
</ModifyPartitions>
<DiskID>0</DiskID>
<WillWipeDisk>true</WillWipeDisk>
<CreatePartitions>
<CreatePartition wcm:action="add">
<Order>1</Order>
<Size>20480</Size>
<Extend>false</Extend>
<Type>Primary</Type>
</CreatePartition>
</CreatePartitions>
</Disk>
<WillShowUI>OnError</WillShowUI>
</DiskConfiguration>

Hard Disk Configuration

I've just finished building my new machine and am after a bit of adivce on the hard disk configuration, i've had some feedback from Jim Simon on another post, but wanted to check what the best set-up would be.
The current set-up is as follows:
1 x 500Gb Raid 0 Array - Windows Programs etc
1 x 1Tb Raid 0 Array - Currently empty
1 x 1Tb Raid 0 Array - Also currently blank
I have in total 6 Disks, 4 x 500Gb SATA drives and 2 x 250Gb SATA Drievs, the MB i'm using supports RAID in 0 / 1 / 5 / 0+1 / JBOD
Thanks in advance.

I would put captured material on the second RAID and Projects/Scratch/Preview on the third.
It seems like overkill to have the third RAID0 though. I would be inclined to set up the 5th and 6th disks as separate and put projects/scratch on one, and use the 6th as backup for the 5th. Not as a RAID1 because that would slow things down. Just a separate backup.

BP Fact Sheet adding Multiple BI views using SAP configuration tool

Hi,
I am able to add multiple BI reports to the Fact Sheet using SAP standard Configuration. But all the views appear with the Same Heading "BI Report". Is there a way I can change the title "BI Report" to something more specific to the Report context using SAP Standard Configuration or a BADI.
E.g. Sales Data Report / Volume Analysis
instead of BI Report / BI Report
I am able to do so by creating my own BI inbound plugs for the interface definition in the component BP_FACTSHEET but I do not want to use that approach if their is a SAP standard way of doing it.
Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
Sumeet

Hi Sumeet,
If you want to change the title of the view then you have to go particular component and view .Then redefine this method IF_BSP_WD_HISTORY_STATE_DESCR~GET_STATE_DESCRIPTION and give ur title in description variable.Or you can go to this component BSP_DLC_FS and change the title when you assign the view in particular tiles.
Thanks
Vishwas Sahu

Multiple tenant on Exadata disk configuration

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for