Summary: Disk Partitions and AdvFS
From: Garsha, Adam (adam.garsha_at_marquette.edu)
Date: 06/28/05
- Previous message: Jonathan Williams: "SUMMARY: Sleeping Processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:56:15 -0500 To: tru64-unix-managers@ornl.gov
Overwhelming support for using a single LUN per AdvFS Domain and for
using the "c" partition (i.e. whole disk approach) vs. using multiple
partitions across multiple domains to achieve best performance.
Since we have an EVA and since we have the AdvFS Utilities license (both
of which make it pretty trivial to correct this), I am going to move
forward with the slow march to get all of our Oracle domains running on
independent whole LUNs.
Benefits will include:
-- performance
-- easier to determine where I/O is coming from (which apps)
-- easier to manage since I will then be able to increase LUN size at
EVA level
-- sets us up for being able to use SAN level snaps without going mad
with complexity/dependencies
Thanks all, for your quick responses and consideration!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original question:
Is there any good reason to carve up partitions to utilize with AdvFS
domains vs. using 1 whole disk partition per domain?
i.e.
foo_domain -> dsk75a
bar_domain -> dsk75b
car_domain -> dsk75d
...
vs.
foo_domain -> dsk76c
bar_domain -> dsk77c
car_domain -> dsk78c
We have a system set up to utilize partitions vs. the whole disk
approach. It seems like a bad idea to me (i.e. it seems better to me to
do all partitioning at the SAN level). Is there any good reason to do it
using partitions at the OS disk level?
Thanks.
Adam Garsha
Systems Engineer
Marquette University IT Services
414-288-3750 (Office)
414-235-0112 (Cell)
adam.garsha@marquette.edu
- Previous message: Jonathan Williams: "SUMMARY: Sleeping Processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
