Hi,
We have an HP N4000 with two 550 Mhz processors running HP-UX 11 and Progress 9.1D (no AIW). Databasize size is roughly 8 GB, and 140 self-service clients running.
We are have recently added 4 more drives to our HP Mod 20 array (with two controllers), for a total of 12 4.3 GB drives, and are looking to re-arrange our data layout.
Currently, on controller one we have 4 disks running RAID 0/1. These drives hold the application and some database extents. Controller two also has 4 disks running RAID 0/1 and holds the remainder of the database extents as well as the BI file.
Which new configuration would be "better":
1) On controller 1: 6 drives running RAID 0/1 for DB extents
On controller 2: 4 drives running RAID 0/1 for app code, logs, etc.
2 drives running RAID 1 for BI file
OR
2) On controller 1: 6 drives running RAID 0/1 for DB extents,app code
On controller 2: 6 drives running RAID 0/1 for DB extents, BI file
OR
something else???
The benefit of Option (1) is the BI file is on its own spindle, but the DB is only on six spindles-- whereas the benefit of Option (2) is the DB is spread across 12 spindles-- but they are shared with the application and the BI file.
Any opinions, or things I should look at to factor in?
Thanks,
James
BTW, the drives are SCSI-FWD (SCSI-2). If we went with Option 2, I presume we would look at splitting the busiest tables between Controllers 1 and 2...
We have an HP N4000 with two 550 Mhz processors running HP-UX 11 and Progress 9.1D (no AIW). Databasize size is roughly 8 GB, and 140 self-service clients running.
We are have recently added 4 more drives to our HP Mod 20 array (with two controllers), for a total of 12 4.3 GB drives, and are looking to re-arrange our data layout.
Currently, on controller one we have 4 disks running RAID 0/1. These drives hold the application and some database extents. Controller two also has 4 disks running RAID 0/1 and holds the remainder of the database extents as well as the BI file.
Which new configuration would be "better":
1) On controller 1: 6 drives running RAID 0/1 for DB extents
On controller 2: 4 drives running RAID 0/1 for app code, logs, etc.
2 drives running RAID 1 for BI file
OR
2) On controller 1: 6 drives running RAID 0/1 for DB extents,app code
On controller 2: 6 drives running RAID 0/1 for DB extents, BI file
OR
something else???
The benefit of Option (1) is the BI file is on its own spindle, but the DB is only on six spindles-- whereas the benefit of Option (2) is the DB is spread across 12 spindles-- but they are shared with the application and the BI file.
Any opinions, or things I should look at to factor in?
Thanks,
James
BTW, the drives are SCSI-FWD (SCSI-2). If we went with Option 2, I presume we would look at splitting the busiest tables between Controllers 1 and 2...