Sizing hw for small oracle database 
Author Message
 Sizing hw for small oracle database

I know that it is hard to do a general suggestion on sizing hardware but
I need a starting point for recommendations to customers. I think the
number of concurrent users is a one way to determine the sizing of
hardware even if 2 sites with the same number of users might differ
depending on how the application is used (how many users ar doing heavy
data entry users or running heavy batch processes compared to users
running only mall queries).

The small sites are more sensitive to cost than the larger sites (100+
users) so I have to compromise optimal configuration from a performance
and availability aspect, with the cost.

The application is an OLTP (about 200 tables), small frequent
select/insert/updates.

O/S: NT/Netware/Linux Lets assume o/s is NT (customers preference, not
my).

In most cases 7 x 24 availability is not necessary (most use the
application "9-5"), but sensitivity to down-time during regular working
hours is different (some will not tolerate any longer

Processor and memory
--------------------

10-20 concurrent users, 250-500 MB data

Minimum:     1 Pentium II 266 MHz or better, 128 MB RAM
Recommended: 1 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, 256 MB RAM

50 concurrent users, 0,5 - 2 GB data

Minimum: 1 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, 256 MB RAM
Recommended 2 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, maybe start with 1
processor (buy a motherboard expandable to 2-4 processors), 512 MB RAM

For which load do you think it is necessary to use more than 1 processor
(a general rough estimate since it is impossible to know for sure until
you have analyzed the actual CPU usage).

Storage
-------

There are two things to consider, performance and availability. "Every
installation is Mission Critical but some are more Mission critical than
other", i.e. for some customers it is ok that the system is down a half
day or more but for some other it is unacceptable. One way to classify
the sites is availability and performance, Some examples:

a) Low demand for availability. Losing some data is acceptable ("I will
tolerate losing all work since the last backup")

I don't think this kind of user would need the application to run on
Oracle but I include this category anyway.

Storage: 1 SCSI disk. If better performance add one or more disks (RAID0
or manually balancing load)

Use archiving if protection against instance failure is important (but no
protection against media failure).

b) Fault tolerant but down-time for replacing a failed disk and recovery
is acceptable, losing data is not acceptable.

- O/S, Oracle s/w and datafiles on disk 1 and 1 set of redo logs and
control file (if high through-put is required, use RAID0 or manually
balancing load on 2 or more disks, maybe also separating o/s and software
to an own disk)

- Mirrored redo logs and control file+ archived log files on disk 2

This configuration would require at least 2 disks

c) Fault tolerant, high availability (no down-time during work-hours),
small-medium througput requirements.

1) Everything on RAID5 (3 disks or more)

2) An alternative is perhaps to add two more disks (no RAID) and put Redo
logs and archive logs on these (multiplexed to each disk)

d) Fault tolerant, high availability (no down-time during work-hours),
high througput requirements.

1) Use RAID1+0 (4 disks or more)
2) Manually balancing load on several RAID1 arrays for data files, o/s
and Oracle, separate disks (2) for redo logs/archive logs.

Any comments or recommendations? I think that for our customers will
choose either alternative b) (probably using > 2 disks) or c) (RAID5
only).

I am very interested in hearing about what your configuration you are
using.

BTW, have you ever installed a production site using IDE disk. My opinion
is that IDE disks are not suitable for a server (either Oracle or even a
file server). We have a customer who wants us to install Oracle on his
existing "server" which is a PII-266, 128 RAM using 1 IDE disk. I have
recommended against using this configuration (I can live with the
processor and memory because it is few users, but the IDE disk is not
acceptable).

Magnus



Wed, 18 Jun 1902 08:00:00 GMT
 Sizing hw for small oracle database

Hi:

See some of the info on my site below.  It may help (particularly the
section on Configuration).

Regards,

--
David C. Sisk
Need tech info on Oracle? Visit The Unofficial ORACLE on NT site at
http://www.ipass.net/~davesisk/oont.htm
Like original music?  Listen to song samples and buy a CD at
http://www.mp3.com/disparityofcult

Quote:

>I know that it is hard to do a general suggestion on sizing hardware but
>I need a starting point for recommendations to customers. I think the
>number of concurrent users is a one way to determine the sizing of
>hardware even if 2 sites with the same number of users might differ
>depending on how the application is used (how many users ar doing heavy
>data entry users or running heavy batch processes compared to users
>running only mall queries).

>The small sites are more sensitive to cost than the larger sites (100+
>users) so I have to compromise optimal configuration from a performance
>and availability aspect, with the cost.

>The application is an OLTP (about 200 tables), small frequent
>select/insert/updates.

>O/S: NT/Netware/Linux Lets assume o/s is NT (customers preference, not
>my).

>In most cases 7 x 24 availability is not necessary (most use the
>application "9-5"), but sensitivity to down-time during regular working
>hours is different (some will not tolerate any longer

>Processor and memory
>--------------------

>10-20 concurrent users, 250-500 MB data

>Minimum:     1 Pentium II 266 MHz or better, 128 MB RAM
>Recommended: 1 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, 256 MB RAM

>50 concurrent users, 0,5 - 2 GB data

>Minimum: 1 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, 256 MB RAM
>Recommended 2 Pentium II/III 450 Mhz or better, maybe start with 1
>processor (buy a motherboard expandable to 2-4 processors), 512 MB RAM

>For which load do you think it is necessary to use more than 1 processor
>(a general rough estimate since it is impossible to know for sure until
>you have analyzed the actual CPU usage).

>Storage
>-------

>There are two things to consider, performance and availability. "Every
>installation is Mission Critical but some are more Mission critical than
>other", i.e. for some customers it is ok that the system is down a half
>day or more but for some other it is unacceptable. One way to classify
>the sites is availability and performance, Some examples:

>a) Low demand for availability. Losing some data is acceptable ("I will
>tolerate losing all work since the last backup")

>I don't think this kind of user would need the application to run on
>Oracle but I include this category anyway.

>Storage: 1 SCSI disk. If better performance add one or more disks (RAID0
>or manually balancing load)

>Use archiving if protection against instance failure is important (but no
>protection against media failure).

>b) Fault tolerant but down-time for replacing a failed disk and recovery
>is acceptable, losing data is not acceptable.

>- O/S, Oracle s/w and datafiles on disk 1 and 1 set of redo logs and
>control file (if high through-put is required, use RAID0 or manually
>balancing load on 2 or more disks, maybe also separating o/s and software
>to an own disk)

>- Mirrored redo logs and control file+ archived log files on disk 2

>This configuration would require at least 2 disks

>c) Fault tolerant, high availability (no down-time during work-hours),
>small-medium througput requirements.

>1) Everything on RAID5 (3 disks or more)

>2) An alternative is perhaps to add two more disks (no RAID) and put Redo
>logs and archive logs on these (multiplexed to each disk)

>d) Fault tolerant, high availability (no down-time during work-hours),
>high througput requirements.

>1) Use RAID1+0 (4 disks or more)
>2) Manually balancing load on several RAID1 arrays for data files, o/s
>and Oracle, separate disks (2) for redo logs/archive logs.

>Any comments or recommendations? I think that for our customers will
>choose either alternative b) (probably using > 2 disks) or c) (RAID5
>only).

>I am very interested in hearing about what your configuration you are
>using.

>BTW, have you ever installed a production site using IDE disk. My opinion
>is that IDE disks are not suitable for a server (either Oracle or even a
>file server). We have a customer who wants us to install Oracle on his
>existing "server" which is a PII-266, 128 RAM using 1 IDE disk. I have
>recommended against using this configuration (I can live with the
>processor and memory because it is few users, but the IDE disk is not
>acceptable).

>Magnus



Wed, 18 Jun 1902 08:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. HW Sizing for Veritas Mediaserver in W2K/EX Environment

2. BackOffice Small Business Server MS SQL database total size limitations

3. Restore database to smaller size box

4. What memory size does one smallest database startup ?

5. Small Size Database Engine

6. Help small-size database

7. SQL Server database file size versus Oracle File size

8. Database server hw...what to get ?

9. Large IX databases on Compaq HW sought

10. hw/sw for setting up oracle db on internet

11. Oracle 8i with Applications 10.7 - HW concerns

12. min system & hw requirements oracle ebusiness suite


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software