RE: SAN and ORACLE

Well, we can't justify a SHARK, but we've got a FAStT (baby SHARK) on order,
and we plan to zone the physical drives exactly as you have described.  I'm
not sure about the SHARK, but the lowly (in comparison -- no fins on the
racks) FAStT and IBM's Storage Manager can handle it nicely, as long as
you're not running Windohs.

Rich

Rich Jesse                        System/Database Administrator
rich.jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxx           Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA


-----Original Message-----
From: ed lewis [mailto:eglewis@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:47 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: SAN and ORACLE


Hi,
    I'm interested in people's experiences with 
SAN, specifically SHARK, and Oracle.
     I have adopted a system where all of the Oracle files,
including archive, redo, rbs etc, reside on the same
"logical" device. I know that the placement of this data
is handled by the SAN.
      My concern is with the recovery issue, more than
with performance. I would like to separate the data from 
the Oracle files that are required for recovery (archive,redo,rbs,etc).
I was hoping to create a separate "logical" device which has
it's own physical devices that are separate from the data, and
place the recovery files there.
      I was told that this is not possible with a SAN.
Is this really the case ?  thanks for your input.

                ed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to:  oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Other related posts: