New HP EVA6000 SAN and now bad database performance problems

Question

Hello,
we changed our SAN Hardware to a HP EVA6000 and moved all Data to there.
It is intended that storagesystem is for all Servers (File/Print, Exchange, Oracle Databases and MSSQL Databases).
According to the best practice papers of HP we created one big discgroup (fata harddiscs) and created virtual discs for our servers.
After doing this the database performance was terrible bad!
Especially the multiple random IO is absolutely worse.
As a first countermeasure we created a second discgroup on faster harddiscs and moved the database contents to there. We analyzed the IO and moved several database file to different virtual discs.
The performance is better now, but still not like the 4 year old SAN System!
Of course we questioned HP and even let them do a performance analysis but up to now we have no solution... The performance analysis report will be available on thursday.
Does anybody had the same experience or how did you configure the Database and EVA SAN to work with an appropiate performance?

Answer 1

Hi,
I'm not an Oracle person, but do work with EVA SAN's.
Your 48 FATA disk, disk group is capable of 4800 I/O operations per second [48 x 100] but the disks are only rated for 30% duty cycle and spin at 7200 rpm.
The 16 FC drive Disk Group I/O operations rating depends on the speed the disks spin at. 10K rpm disks are rated at 130 I/O per sec [2080 for the group] and if they are 15K rpm disks then 170 I/O per sec [2720 for the group]. Both are rated for 100% duty cycle.
I seem to recall having have read somewhere that Oracle prefers to have it's logs on separate storage to it's data.
If your shelves had the spare disk slots I would put in 72 GB 15K rpm disks up to the capacity required {+ overhead } + head room for reasonably predictable growth over the anticpated life of the equipment.
Here is a link to the HP Best Practice guide for EVA 4/6/8000's
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-2787ENW.pdf
I hope this helps you understand the storage that you are working with a bit better. The old saying of "more heads make for better performance" is still true, however budget can have some affect in performance. ;-)
Jim