Re: ASM

  • From: "Charles Schultz" <sacrophyte@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: guillermo.bort@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:58:58 -0500

On the flip side, we like our SA's. However, we are lacking in clustered
experience (in any group). We have read whitepapers from both Sun and Oracle
saying that their cluster stack is better than the other. What about real
world experiences? Has anyone used both and have a somewhat objective
comparison?

Oracle certainly picked a controversial direction with ASM. =) I still do
not understand how Oracle has provided a really cool with ASM that is
horribly lacking in friendliness and versatility.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Bort, Guillermo <guillermo.bort@xxxxxxx>wrote:

>  <QUOTE>
>
>
>
> Now against that, and in addition to Jared's points. I'd ask why consider a
> storage solution that *only* works for Oracle files (and even then not all
> Oracle files. I keep other files on my servers you know. Including stuff
> you'd expect to be there like alert.logs, cron scripts and so on.
>
>
>
> </QUOTE>
>
>
>
> ASM is designed as a CLUSTER FILESYSTEM, that's why it only supports files
> that **need** to be shared across all nodes. Alerts, cronts, etc are
> instance-dependant, so you only need them in the local server. Also, if you
> want a 'traditional' cluster filesystem, you can always use OCFS, although I
> wouldn't recommend it to anyone I don't utterly hate… :P
>
>
>
> I've had experiences with veritas cluster filesystem not working for RAC.
> Really, in 10g+ ASM is the best way to go… and in 9i RAC, I'd go with raw
> devices instead of any cluster filesystem.
>
>
>
> I'm a DBA and I have little but contempt for SAs (the ones I personally
> know, anyway), so I don't really care that they don't like ASM… :P
>
>
>
> I'd like ASM to work for OCR and VOTING, but that is a contradiction by
> design.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> *Guillermo Alan Bort*
>
> DBA / DBA Main Team
>
>
>
> *EDS*, an HP company
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Charles Schultz
  • References:

Other related posts: