Re: 10g RAC without vendor clusterware

Hi, 

in-line

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:09:45 +0100, Koen Van Langenhove
<Koen.Van_Langenhove@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> looks like you're a little pessimistic about the ASM  instance.  Would
> you care telling us why ? It's just another instance, why would be it be
> less reliable than the 'real' instances ? Apart from the fact that's it
> is a relatively new feature of course, because the same goes for any
> other new major version of a regular volume manager.
> 

How do you like moving a db from ASM to non-ASM or vice-versa? There
are many reasons to move one back and forth so I won't specify all the
cases, but its not fun.

How about the posting that ASMLib can not handle DW (>64K) I/O that
was posted to the list a couple days ago? My point here is just wait
and see how long until oracle fixes this one (in my opinion critical -
show stopper) bug. If its long, you can tell Oracle has no priority
(e.g. $$income) for ASM. ;-)

How come (in my opionion, almost) no-one (except one popular Oracle
employee) is consistently preaching the greatness of ASM? One guy?

BTW, what is your redundant (no single point failure) strategy for ASM? 

I'm just curious because one of my clients has a single NetApp and
RAC/ASM and the NetApp (and ASM) is the single point of failure until
they buy a second NetApp. Of course, if the NetApp (or ASM) fails then
they have data loss because they have no access to the files. I know,
I know, not a great design, but its easy to get over-confident when it
comes to these things. I prefer to call someone 'cautious' rather than
'pessisimistic/unemployed/etc'.

HTH

Regards,

Mike
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: