Sybase NNTP forums - End Of Life (EOL)

The NNTP forums from Sybase - forums.sybase.com - are now closed.

All new questions should be directed to the appropriate forum at the SAP Community Network (SCN).

Individual products have links to the respective forums on SCN, or you can go to SCN and search for your product in the search box (upper right corner) to find your specific developer center.

Sybase Table Partitioning and RAID

3 posts in Windows NT Last posting was on 2001-03-05 15:38:27.0Z
aplmr30 Posted on 2001-03-01 15:01:03.0Z
Message-ID: <3A9E642F.C1C96720@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:01:03 +0000
From: aplmr30 <aplmr30@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Organization: Netscape Online member
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Sybase Table Partitioning and RAID
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Newsgroups: sybase.public.sqlserver.nt
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: userap85.netscapeonline.co.uk 62.125.134.47
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.sqlserver.nt:1163
Article PK: 1088613

If disk placement is used for a user databases devices and problems
occur on inserts to heap tables then table partitioning can be used to
help alleviate this problem short of adding indexes to the tables in
question.

What happens when a user database is configured to run on, say RAID 5
or RAID 1+0 with 10 disks in a logical array (on NT)? - does RAID
architecture solve the problem of inserts to heap tables as data is
stored
randomly across the disks in the array or would partitioning still play
a
part.

I suspect that partitioning isn't required if using certain RAID levels
but the sybase documentation is very poor when dealing with hardware
set ups.

I look forward to some responses.


Bret Halford Posted on 2001-03-01 23:47:10.0Z
Message-ID: <3A9EDF7E.579DFF22@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:47:10 -0700
From: Bret Halford <bret@sybase.com>
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Sybase Table Partitioning and RAID
References: <3A9E642F.C1C96720@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Newsgroups: sybase.public.sqlserver.nt
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: bret-pc.sybase.com 157.133.80.211
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.sqlserver.nt:1161
Article PK: 1088662

Patitioning is still useful if you configure ASE for worker process
parallelism, as one strategy is to assign one worker process to scan
each partition, which is pretty efficient. If the table is not
partitioned,
the worker processes all have to scan the same long page chain,
picking different pages to process, but still having to scan the whole
chain. The partition scan is much more efficient.

-bret

aplmr30 wrote:

> If disk placement is used for a user databases devices and problems
> occur on inserts to heap tables then table partitioning can be used to
> help alleviate this problem short of adding indexes to the tables in
> question.
>
> What happens when a user database is configured to run on, say RAID 5
> or RAID 1+0 with 10 disks in a logical array (on NT)? - does RAID
> architecture solve the problem of inserts to heap tables as data is
> stored
> randomly across the disks in the array or would partitioning still play
> a
> part.
>
> I suspect that partitioning isn't required if using certain RAID levels
> but the sybase documentation is very poor when dealing with hardware
> set ups.
>
> I look forward to some responses.


aplmr30 Posted on 2001-03-05 15:38:27.0Z
Message-ID: <3AA3B2F2.74FB89B0@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:38:27 +0000
From: aplmr30 <aplmr30@netscapeonline.co.uk>
Organization: Netscape Online member
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Sybase Table Partitioning and RAID
References: <3A9E642F.C1C96720@netscapeonline.co.uk> <3A9EDF7E.579DFF22@sybase.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Newsgroups: sybase.public.sqlserver.nt
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.125.154.88
Path: forums-1-dub!forums-master.sybase.com!forums.sybase.com
Xref: forums-1-dub sybase.public.sqlserver.nt:1151
Article PK: 1088605

Thanks for the answer. We will not be enabling any worker processes or any
parallel options. I need to know if RAID 1 + 0 (or other RAID architecture)
has the same affect of randomising inserts into a heap table as partitioning
heap tables when created on specific data device placement strategy.
Alan

Bret Halford wrote:

> Patitioning is still useful if you configure ASE for worker process
> parallelism, as one strategy is to assign one worker process to scan
> each partition, which is pretty efficient. If the table is not
> partitioned,
> the worker processes all have to scan the same long page chain,
> picking different pages to process, but still having to scan the whole
> chain. The partition scan is much more efficient.
>
> -bret
>
> aplmr30 wrote:
>
> > If disk placement is used for a user databases devices and problems
> > occur on inserts to heap tables then table partitioning can be used to
> > help alleviate this problem short of adding indexes to the tables in
> > question.
> >
> > What happens when a user database is configured to run on, say RAID 5
> > or RAID 1+0 with 10 disks in a logical array (on NT)? - does RAID
> > architecture solve the problem of inserts to heap tables as data is
> > stored
> > randomly across the disks in the array or would partitioning still play
> > a
> > part.
> >
> > I suspect that partitioning isn't required if using certain RAID levels
> > but the sybase documentation is very poor when dealing with hardware
> > set ups.
> >
> > I look forward to some responses.