don@dksfr.UUCP (don kossman) (03/07/90)
environment: sco xenix 386, ast 386/25 with cache, wd1007v controller 16 mb ram, 2 x primus esdi 750m (unformatted) drives excelan 405t ethernet package, oracle 5.1.17.x for xenix 386 we have been told by oracle to expect about a 30% performance gain by using raw disk partitions instead of regular xenix files for the database and before-image files. the system is used exclusively as an oracle database server, clients (about 10 386SX machines running xenix) connect to the server via sqlnet/tcp-ip. can someone who's tried both configurations in a similar environment please comment? -- Don Kossman, SEI Information Technology, Los Angeles mahendo.jpl.nasa.gov!jplgodo!seila!don OR sun!suntzu!seila!don
jim@cdp.UUCP (03/08/90)
I spoke to someone in Xenix support about two months ago about raw
partitions for Oracle under Xenix. The person I talked to sounded
unusually knowledgeable. Unfortunately, I don't remember his name,
and I didn't even take any notes, so the following information is
incomplete.
I had just brought Oracle up on a raw partition and was doing a
little tuning. Everything seemed to be working fine (and fast). I
called Oracle support about some other problem and ended up talking
about raw partitions (always looking for a little more information).
Basically, I was told don't do it. This Oracle person claimed that a
raw partition under Xenix is not truly raw. That is, there is some
sort of buffering going on, and it's enough to (rarely but inevitably)
cause Oracle problems. He had an exact problem and error number, but
that's one of the things I don't remember. I've never seen anything
related to problems with Xenix raw partitions on Oracle's support BBS
and this person had other mean things to say about Xenix and SCO, but
he was convincing enough for me. I can't afford to have the company
database go down.
If anyone else has any experience with Xenix raw partitions and
Oracle I'd like to hear about it. Has anyone else been warned away
by Oracle?
-jim
PS: Don, if you're really running 5.1.17 you should upgrade to 5.1.22.
It's much cleaner. I'd like to hear more about your application,
can you email me?
Jim Wampler
jim@cdp.uucp
..uunet!pyramid!cdp!jim
..hplabs!cdp!jim