LutzM (12/7/2011)
I hear both of ya!! :crying:I'll keep trying to talk those folks into more spindles and much larger local drives (the fact they still didn't answer my memory dump related question counts for our group I guess...).
I'll also insist on the 64K setting. Thanks to both of you for bringing that up!
Right now nothing is ordered yet. Fortunately. I might need to get management involved if we can't reach an agreement. Seems like it's becoming a "battle zone" requiring a little more attention... 😎
If I can't "win the battle" before the metal & fibre get installed, I'll do a little stress test (well, I'll do it anway...). If they can prove me wrong, I'd be happy... (sort of, at least)
A third vote for 64k. With more than white papers, but biased provincial evidence. Insane returns on the run-times of warehouse queries, to the tune of ~15 seconds for each minute it used to run... on the exact same iron with just different formatting and settings.
One of the huge things you're going to need to deal with Lutz is how they're going to handle the SAN's cache. Raid5 vs. RAID 10 these days isn't enough of a big deal, mostly because of the cache and improvements to the RAID5 controller programming. There's still a difference but it's not the "What's wrong with you?!?!?!" question it used to be.
That cache and its usage is going to be critical to if you have enough spindles or not.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA