Re: asm vs raw - the smackdown

~Jeff~ wrote:
> does anyone know of any papers or study comparing ASM vs raw
> performance?   We have a vendor deadset on raw, and the DbAs would
> rather not have to deal with that!
From metalink note 754305.1, accessed today:
==> In release 11.2, the Oracle installer and DBCA (Database
configuration assistant) will no longer support raw/block devices for
database files.
==> As stated in metalink note <578455.1>, Oracle plans to fully
desupport RAW/Block device storage effective with the next major release
following 11.2. At this time, customers will need to migrate any data
files stored on RAW/Block devices to ASM, a cluster file system, or NFS.
Thus, we recommend new databases not be deployed on RAW/Block devices.

I couldn't access metalink note 578455 but it is also mentioned here:
http://askdba.org/weblog/?p=154

Also, just a technicality, but if you're on Linux then raw access has
long been deprecated in favor of direct block access.

I wouldn't expect to see too much difference in performance since ASM is
essentially accessing the devices in a "raw" manner.  But there are
countless other reasons to choose ASM above raw. And I really can't
think of a single good reason to choose raw above ASM today.  If it were
me, I'd continue to strongly argue with the vendor.

-Jeremy

-- 
Jeremy Schneider
Chicago, IL
http://www.ardentperf.com

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

Other related posts: