RE: Q:To ASM or Not to ASM
- From: "Kevin Closson" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "oracle-l" <Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:02:08 -0700
>>>Every technology is new for some time. That does not mean
>>>that we should not use that.
Very few features affect a wholesale change to the
fundamental underpinnings of a product though. Oracle
has managed file contents for 20 years, not files.
>>>I see ASM is going to replace most of the expen$ive volume
>>>managers in next versions and after some time, ASM may be
>>>the _only_ storage option for the data files.. But that will
>>>be a long way from now. ASM is improving and will be an
>>>accptable solution in many data certers.
Since 85% of all data in digital form is unstructured (not
in RDBMS), and there are non-Oracle databases too, real
datacenters need general purpose volume management. We
have an oil and gas company with 166TB of unstructured
data...I don't think ASM helps them much. Even Oracle
related files need filesystems (imp/exp/loader/ext tables,
executables, compressed archived redo) etc....
we shouldn't forget that there is more in the datacenter
than oracle datafiles/online redo/control files.
>>>
>>>You don't need to tune the ASM. It is SAME concept.
Is it SAME (0+1), or MASE(1+0)? That is important to consider.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
