DB Sapces....
Tam OShanter asked why use multiple dbspaces rather than one large one on a SAN, and whether a 60/40 data-to-log ratio is valid. Thomas J. Girsch said there is no fixed answer but never one big space: at least root/physlog, logical logs, temp, data and index spaces. Obnoxio The Clown advised more than five, with several temp and data/index spaces, fragmenting big tables, and avoiding an index-only space.
Auto-generated by Claude from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Hello Friends, I'm looking for the reasoning in deciding on how many DB Spaces to use on a given system. Specifically, if using a SAN where disk IO and LUN size isn't an issue, what would be the reason for using multiple DBSpaces as opposed to 1 large one? Also, is a 60/40 ration of data space to log space a valid one when sizing? I'm sure this is a pedestrian question for most of you, but I am currious. Tam.
Tam OShanter said: > Hello Friends, > > I'm looking for the reasoning in deciding on how many DB Spaces to use on > a > given system. > > Specifically, if using a SAN where disk IO and LUN size isn't an issue, > what > would be the reason for using multiple DBSpaces as opposed to 1 large one? PDQ. Use multiple dbspace, OK? > Also, is a 60/40 ration of data space to log space a valid one when > sizing? It depends. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
There's no fixed answer to these questions. It's going to depend a lot o your system, your platform, your SAN, and your application. I can tell you that you DON'T want one big space. At least five, and probably more. (Root/Physlog, Logical Logs, Temp, at least one data space, and at least one index space, hopefully with some sort of spindle spread among them.) A lot of it is a balancing act. Too many spaces increases your management burden (people time); too few limits your flexibility and the ability of the engine to parallelize. If I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of too many. Just my $.02 - TJG Tam OShanter wrote: > Hello Friends, > > I'm looking for the reasoning in deciding on how many DB Spaces to use on a > given system. > > Specifically, if using a SAN where disk IO and LUN size isn't an issue, what > would be the reason for using multiple DBSpaces as opposed to 1 large one? > > > Also, is a 60/40 ration of data space to log space a valid one when sizing? > > I'm sure this is a pedestrian question for most of you, but I am currious. > > Tam. > > > >
Thomas J. Girsch said: > There's no fixed answer to these questions. It's going to depend a lot > o your system, your platform, your SAN, and your application. I can > tell you that you DON'T want one big space. At least five, and probably > more. (Root/Physlog, Logical Logs, Temp, at least one data space, and > at least one index space, hopefully with some sort of spindle spread > among them.) More than five, definitely. root, physical, logical, at least three temp, at least six data / index. And you want to fragment your big tables, it's very handy for mass operations like index builds or rebuilds. I don't advocate an index-only space, that tends to become a bottleneck. If you have dozens or even hundreds of index spaces, that's probably OK. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.