RE: RAC and ASM disk layout

 
        
        If anybody wants all the bugs out of a product (in this case
ASM) before using it, then let's throw all our softs out the window. If
you look at any patchset (10gR1 or 10gR2), how many patches you find for
ASM, compared to, let's say, CBO? and every body uses CBO. 

... all software has bugs. Not all bugs are created equal. Some are
bourne
out of architecture...some are errant pointers... judge according to
your conscience.

        Another point about performance: Netapps say that if you use ASM
with iSCSI configuration to go to their disks, it's faster than using
NAS (NFS mount the disks). They did the tests, not me. So, if you can
live with it, ASM is the way to go. 

...bwahahahaha..that is likely because iSCSI is a lighter protocol than
NFS. I
also suspect that the NVRAM might not be active when a filer is an iSCSI
target (somebody in the know please corect me on that point).  In
general,
however, iSCSI from a Netapp filer is a really weird situation. I know
very few people on this list care about such subtleties, and thus very
few
realize that the way NetApp presents an iSCSI target is as follows. The
data is stored in blocks in disk, the disks are grouped and managed in
volumes,
the volumes have a WAFL filesysem with files in it. The Filer presents
the files as blocks via the iSCSI protocol...hmmm..

block->volume->filesystem->block->iSCSI 

yippie


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


Other related posts: