Skip to Main Content

Hardware

Announcement

For appeals, questions and feedback about Oracle Forums, please email oracle-forums-moderators_us@oracle.com. Technical questions should be asked in the appropriate category. Thank you!

OK to use fdisk/100% "SOLARIS System" partition for RAID6 Virtual Drive?

Barry SchamachDec 7 2012 — edited Jan 9 2013
Solaris newb, here - I am configuring an x4270 with 16 135 GB drives. Basic approach is

D0, D1: RAID 1 (Boot volume, Solaris, Oracle Software)
D2-D13: RAID 6 (Oracle dB files)
D14, D15: global spares

After configuring the RAID's w/WebBIOS Utility, I am now trying to format/partition the RAID 6 Virtual Drive, which shows up as 1.327 TB 'Optimal' in the MegaRAID Storage Manager. After hunting around the ether for advice on how to do this, I came across http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1459/disksxadd-50.html#disksxadd-54639

"Creating a Solaris fdisk Partition That Spans the Entire Drive"

which is painfully simple: after 'format', just do an 'fdisk' and accept the default 100% "SOLARIS System" partition. After doing this, partition>print and prtvtoc show this:

partition> print
Current partition table (original):
Total disk cylinders available: 59125 + 2 (reserved cylinders)

Part Tag Flag Cylinders Size Blocks
0 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
1 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
2 backup wu 0 - 59124 1.33TB (59125/0/0) 2849529375
3 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
4 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
5 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
6 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
7 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0
8 boot wu 0 - 0 23.53MB (1/0/0) 48195
9 unassigned wm 0 0 (0/0/0) 0


# prtvtoc /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s2
* /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s2 partition map
*
* Dimensions:
* 512 bytes/sector
* 189 sectors/track
* 255 tracks/cylinder
* 48195 sectors/cylinder
* 59127 cylinders
* 59125 accessible cylinders
*
* Flags:
* 1: unmountable
* 10: read-only
*
* Unallocated space:
* First Sector Last
* Sector Count Sector
* 48195 2849481180 2849529374
*
* First Sector Last
* Partition Tag Flags Sector Count Sector Mount Directory
2 5 01 0 2849529375 2849529374
8 1 01 0 48195 48194

My question: is there anything inherently wrong with this default partitioning? Database is for OLTP & fairly small (<200 GB), with about 140 GB being LOB images.

Thanks,

Barry
This post has been answered by 800381 on Jan 5 2013
Jump to Answer
Comments
Locked Post
New comments cannot be posted to this locked post.
Post Details
Locked on Feb 6 2013
Added on Dec 7 2012
6 comments
1,184 views