Re: Optimizing write performance

In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.980620103156.11811A-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>, Stephen Walmsley <newc0571@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes > >Further to the recent discussion about the relative merits of mirroring, >RAID etc., what if I had a database which is updated in bulk and queried >in a really trivial, computationally cheap way and therefore for which I >wanted to maximize insert, update and delete speed but really wasn't >bothered about select speed? > >It's SCO 3.2.4.2 / Online 4.10.UC2 so fragmenting is not an option. >Several tables are huge (i.e. of the order of 4G "data bytes" and 1.3 >million rows). Short of upgrading, what's the best thing to do? I thought >of using plain old raw partition allocation and arranging for the chunk >allocation to happen in such a way that each of the big tables reside on >seperate disks and then do the batch inserts, deletes and updates across >multiple tables simultaneously. Would this give me a speed increase >commensurate with keeping two or three disks busy instead of just one? > Should do as long as the disk controller can keep up. Multiple disk controllers is usually better. >I suspect RAID and Mirroring are out because of their degraded write >performance. Any ideas anyone? > Mirroring should be the same speed as it is 2 writes to 2 drives in parallel. >S > -- David Williams Maintainer of the Informix FAQ Primary site (Beta Version) http://www.smooth1.demon.co.uk Official site http://www.iiug.org/techinfo/faq/faq_top.html I see you standin', Standin' on your own, It's such a lonely place for you, For you to be If you need a shoulder, Or if you need a friend, I'll be here standing, Until the bitter end... So don't chastise me Or think I, I mean you harm... All I ever wanted Was for you To know that I care