RE: Informix in the SAN environment

Posted in 2004

Dirk Moolman — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:43:58 +0200 — source: Usenet: comp.databases.informix

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45AC2.D911D7E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If I maybe comment a little on point 2 below (2. Moving Physical Log and = Logical Logs out of Rootdbs) =20 I have had some really good gains in performance, by moving the logical = logs, and even all the temp spaces (the more the better), onto separate = spindles. They get really busy, and you don't want them sharing disk with your = user data. =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] = On Behalf Of Traveller2003 Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:34 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Informix in the SAN environment =20 Hi All ,=20 =20 My question is:-=20 =20 Do all the practices mentioned over the years on this new group for disk layout's hold true still for performance on SAN's? =20 I know NO RAID 5.=20 =20 No doubt you still get performance gains but at what price from the administration perspective. I admit it is a pretty open ended question but the idea is to get, hopefully a discussion with a number of views and ideas to use in the future for SAN environments if the "old" views are different. I also ask this question as SAN's technology is becoming more accessible ( Not to all though I know but I am lucky enough to have worked in a number of environments where they do have it). =20 I am interested in a few that come to mind but other practices people want to discuss would be of great benefit as well. =20 1. Detached V attached indexes=20 2. Moving Physical Log and Logical Logs out of Rootdbs 3. Raw devices V cooked files using Vertias=20 4. Optimal Size of chunks related to version 9.4 as the 2 gig chunk limit has been removed. =20 =20 I also realise some of the above maybe a suck it and see type or personal preference question but I figure there are people out there who have experience of these on SAN's. =20 Thank You =20 Traveller2003 ________________________________ << ella for Spam Control >> has removed 2344 Spam messages and set aside = 832 Newsletters for me You can use it too - and it's FREE! www.ellaforspam.com=09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C45AC2.D911D7E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> <div class=3DSection1> If I maybe comment a little on point 2 below (2. Moving Physical = Log and Logical Logs out of Rootdbs)   I have had some really good gains in performance, by moving the = logical logs, and even all the temp spaces (the more the better), onto separate = spindles. They get really busy, and you don't want them sharing disk with = your user data.       -----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] = On Behalf Of Traveller2003 Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:34 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Informix in the SAN environment   Hi All ,   My question is:-   Do all the practices mentioned over the years on this new group = for disk layout's hold true still for performance on = SAN's?   I know NO RAID 5.   No doubt you still get performance gains but at what price from = the <span = styl

RE: Informix in the SAN environment

Related threads

Your privacy choices