Re: ASM versus Filesystems
- From: Martin Berger <martin.a.berger@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "s.cislaghi" <s.cislaghi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:49:02 +0100
Stefano,
at least CERN uses ASM.
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/PDBService/HAandPerf
And i do not see ASM as additional layer, it reduces one:
(ASM instead of Volume Manger + FileSystem).
Can you please specify the 'tests over ASM usually fails', so I can learn
from these?
thank you,
Martin
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 09:34, Stefano Cislaghi <s.cislaghi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> despite all data and stats IMHO ASM sucks. ASM is an additional layer,
> managed through an Oracle instance to manage files in a strange manner.I've
> never seen a big oracle installation, for example in a TLC environment where
> I work using ASM. All tests over ASM usually fails. Actually use of pure raw
> devices should be preferable, better if using 8gbit fiber instead iscsi on a
> 1gb ethernet. Yes, managing raw devices is not easy and usually is not a DBA
> work. Also, type of storage is really important.
>
> Ste
>
> --
> http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu
>
>
>
Other related posts:
