HP3000-L Archives

June 1995, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kevin Newman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Kevin Newman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 9 Jun 1995 07:30:21 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I might point out that if these are *new* drives
as opposed to replacements for existing drives,
then you're not required to do a reload -- all you
need to do is configure them in SYSGEN and perform
a START NORECOVERY.
 
 -- Evan
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
I also might point out that this is not always a
good idea.  This was done at several plants at
Owens Corning.  I was hired one to two years later
as DBA to improve performance of their "slow"
systems.  After looking at the database for a
while, I was able to tell them that they had added
a drive without a reload.  They asked how I was
able to tell, and I pointed out that the most
actively growing datasets, (and the biggest) were
all propigated to the empty drive because it had
the largest contigous sectors of free disk space
on the whole system.  Over time, their database
maintenance had moved the busiest and largest
datasets to the same volume.  I think that the
rough estimates were:
 
65% of databases were on drive 4 (the last one
added)
19% were on drive 2
10%  were on drive 3 and
6% were on drive 1 (system drive)
 
If you have the time, I would do the re-load.
 
Kevin

ATOM RSS1 RSS2