Re: Disk layout for new install of IDS 10 on Linux (SLES 10)



On Jan 16, 6:16 pm, Richard Spitz <Richard.Sp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Informixers,

I'm about to install IDS 10 on a shiny new server running under SuSE Linux
Enterprise Server 10 (SP1). The predecessor machine had IDS 7.31 under SuSE
7.2, so I was restricted to 2GB chunk size.

There are about 20 different databases, many of them rather small and
infrequently used. The total size of all the databases together is
about 4GB, which is of course tiny compared to what many of the pros in this
group are used to ;-) , but also makes it unnecessary to squeeze the last
bit of performance out of the server since even our 7-year-old machine
performs rather well, and the new one has MUCH more power.

My question is about disk layout: Should I bother splitting up the available
disk space in to several dbspaces and separate the more heavily used databases
into different spaces, or might I just as well throw them all together into
one big data space? Of course I will separate root-dbspace from the rest,
but is there any reasonable benefit from creating several chunks/dbspaces
for the data?

BTW: I'm using ontape to disk for backup. Under 7.31, the ability to
restore individual dbspaces was something I considered important. With
arcchecker's ability to restore even individual tables, this seems less
so.

What are your suggestions?

Regards, Richard


You may consider to separate more heavily used databases to dbspaces
ON DIFFERENT DISKS, if that is possible (you didn't mention what is
your disk configuration). Also, logs should be located on separate
disk(s), especially if write activity is substantial.

If you don't have any external backups, it is good to have backups on
separate disks from database, to lessen the risk of losing the data
completely.

Darko Krstic
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: IO Bottleneck
    ... A lot of it is going to utilize the disk. ... noticable to users is the sequential write of the log files. ... files on their own separate set of write-optimized physical disks is a low ... of your users are OWA users, then the impact on the server should be much ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: migrating from MSAccess...
    ... > using MSAccess for some simple databases. ... > We currently have separate databases ... and add a key field to show which client the records belong to. ... > of that front-end linked to the master tables on the server. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)
  • Re: IO Bottleneck
    ... My databases are 36GB in size. ... to buy a new server. ... For your 4 drive RAID 5 array using 10K drives, ... Troubleshooting Analyzer, and of course, the results indicated a disk ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: Problem with Exchange on NAS
    ... Raid 5 Volume for Transaction Logs and Databases. ... At peak times the server is very slow. ... Move the transaction logs off the disk that contains the ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Standby server and external storage array
    ... Looks like the issue of disk corruption is off the table. ... you have a low probability of success with databases that are not properly ... I support the Professional Association for SQL Server ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)