Re: ASM of any significant value when switching to Direct NFS / NetApp / non-RAC?
- From: Nuno Souto <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:04:15 +1000
Herring Dave - dherri wrote,on my timestamp of 10/08/2012 8:27 AM:
> I think another point for skipping ASM when not necessary is the chance of
> skipping out on bugs. ASM is great and works fine most of the time, but in
> each release we've hit a few bugs that have made for some interesting (and
> long) nights.
That goes for just about any of the file system and storage software
technologies Oracle has graced us with in the last 8 years - I've lost count of
them.
Not to say EMC's software is flawless! But in the last 5 years we've hit a
grand
total of 0 (zero) errors from it.
Sure: there have been patches. They go in online. Ever tried that on ASM
with/without RAC? I think we had to reboot the EMC three times in those 5
years: the first two were due to upgrades of the Clarions we had before. Not
bad.
I'll take a punt here but I expect Netapp to be in the same class, if not
better.
How many times has anyone here managed to do the same with that few reboots of
ASM or OCFS or whatever each one's poison is, in a comparable period.
Let's not forget: we run a LOT in that SAN, not just Oracle dbs. Although,
granted: those do the vast bulk of the I/O - around 10TB/day aggregate I/O and
growing.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
