As posted previously, we are in the process of converting one of our customer's 10.2B to 11.3.x (Redhat). The DB will reside on SSD's, bi's and ai's on separate disks and we have 24 cores and 32GB of memory. We will have a weekend to do all that needs to be done, and the db must be up and running on Monday AM.
After doing some analysis of the current db and using Tom's power point on Type II setups, I am considering moving some of the tables from the type I area to their own type II's for better performance as well as changing some of the existing Type II's records per block settings. No problems there.
However, I'm not sure about the cluster sizes for the Type II areas. I've read the kbase articles as well as Tom's ppt, but it's not clear what makes sense. Some of these tables grow quickly (e.g. sales orders), some are rather stagnant as far as growth goes.
Question 1 is what is recommended for setting cluster sizes for active growing tables vs. tables that have lots of reads / updates ?
Question 2 is are there any benefits to making a small table with lots of reads (few updates) a Type II vs Type I with it's own storage/index areas?
The other thing I'm trying to determine is the load of the new db.
I can easily restore the 10.2B db on the new server, then convert to 11.3.x. This has been tested so I have an idea of the timing.
To move to the new db structure, I will have an empty db with the .st file with the layout I will use.
Question 3 is the preferred/fastest method to load the new db. There are two methods I am considering:
1) The usual binary dumps and binary loads / index rebuild
-or-
2) Connect to both db's (using sizable big B's etc), then multi-thread load of the tables using For Each / Create Table / Buffer Copy.
Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciated.
After doing some analysis of the current db and using Tom's power point on Type II setups, I am considering moving some of the tables from the type I area to their own type II's for better performance as well as changing some of the existing Type II's records per block settings. No problems there.
However, I'm not sure about the cluster sizes for the Type II areas. I've read the kbase articles as well as Tom's ppt, but it's not clear what makes sense. Some of these tables grow quickly (e.g. sales orders), some are rather stagnant as far as growth goes.
Question 1 is what is recommended for setting cluster sizes for active growing tables vs. tables that have lots of reads / updates ?
Question 2 is are there any benefits to making a small table with lots of reads (few updates) a Type II vs Type I with it's own storage/index areas?
The other thing I'm trying to determine is the load of the new db.
I can easily restore the 10.2B db on the new server, then convert to 11.3.x. This has been tested so I have an idea of the timing.
To move to the new db structure, I will have an empty db with the .st file with the layout I will use.
Question 3 is the preferred/fastest method to load the new db. There are two methods I am considering:
1) The usual binary dumps and binary loads / index rebuild
-or-
2) Connect to both db's (using sizable big B's etc), then multi-thread load of the tables using For Each / Create Table / Buffer Copy.
Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciated.