RE: RAC and ASM disk layout
- From: "Kevin Closson" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:54:04 -0700
Niall,
both bugs referred to in this notes are fixed in 10.2.0.2 and
they do not seem to lead to data loss or corruption (they resemble a lot
what Alex refers to in his blog note about ASM).
...the point is whether you think those bugs were rooted in the
architecture
or where they simple code bugs. Do you really think a bug that forces
all instances
out during a rebalance was due to a code bug like an errant pointer? No.
Those
were implementation bugs. To a layman, the difference may seem moot if
the remedy is the
same (e.g., Opatch or patchset upgrade), but the fact is there are types
of
bugs. The bugs Niall pointed out are they types of bugs that get found
when things go wrong. Unless your acceptance plan has a long list of
such operations (e.g., RAC instance impact during offline disk
rebalance) you
are essentially judging the book by the cover.
The thread that started this line of questioning came from me and I
stated
right up front that since ASM is optional software it is a matter of
choice. It
is important that forums like this look deeply into such options. It is
the
intellectually curious thing to do.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
