Prev: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 08275
Next: Much RAM or fast RAM?
From: Troels Arvin on 27 Jan 2010 14:41
Hello,

I may be installing a new DB2 v. 9.7 Enterprise Edition (64 bit) on a
Linux server soon. The database will contain around 10TB of data once
it's fully loaded. We will not be using data compression (too expensive).

We have previously used non-automatic (DMS) storage (and even raw
devices, to a certain degree), but I would very much like to cut down on
administration; so in the new database installation, I'd like to use
automatic storage.

The DBMS will be using data living on an IBM XIV storage system. The
philosophy of XIV system is that you cannot specify the placement of
data; in return, the storage system is responsible for distributing data
in little chunks all over the (many) available disks (maintaining copies
of the chunks on separate disks, so that a disk crash will not bring it
all down).

I can't seem to find any disadvantages of automatic storage, especially
because it's meaningless to create several different LUNs on on XIV
system (the LUNs share all the disks anyway).

Am I overlooking drawbacks involved with automatic storage? Does
automatic storage prevent features like a database rebuild (step-wise
restores), for example? Or does it somehow introduce a higher risk of
locking (during backups), like it's the case with SMS tablespaces
containing BLOBs?

--
Troels
From: Hardy on 28 Jan 2010 08:36
On 1ÔÂ28ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç3ʱ41·Ö, Troels Arvin <tro...(a)arvin..dk> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I may be installing a new DB2 v. 9.7 Enterprise Edition (64 bit) on a
> Linux server soon. The database will contain around 10TB of data once
> it's fully loaded. We will not be using data compression (too expensive).
>
> We have previously used non-automatic (DMS) storage (and even raw
> devices, to a certain degree), but I would very much like to cut down on
> administration; so in the new database installation, I'd like to use
> automatic storage.
>
> The DBMS will be using data living on an IBM XIV storage system. The
> philosophy of XIV system is that you cannot specify the placement of
> data; in return, the storage system is responsible for distributing data
> in little chunks all over the (many) available disks (maintaining copies
> of the chunks on separate disks, so that a disk crash will not bring it
> all down).
>
> I can't seem to find any disadvantages of automatic storage, especially
> because it's meaningless to create several different LUNs on on XIV
> system (the LUNs share all the disks anyway).
>
> Am I overlooking drawbacks involved with automatic storage? Does
> automatic storage prevent features like a database rebuild (step-wise
> restores), for example? Or does it somehow introduce a higher risk of
> locking (during backups), like it's the case with SMS tablespaces
> containing BLOBs?
>
> --
> Troels


it is meaningful for less sized database with less management cost.
for a 10T database, I trust more on DMS than AMS. Just personal view,
I don't have test data.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 08275
Next: Much RAM or fast RAM?