RE: 64 node Oracle RAC Cluster (The reality of...)
- From: "Ken Naim" <kennaim@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:27:48 -0500
I haven't worked with ASM so I cannot comment on whether to use it or not
however a couple reasons to use it could be cost and support. AFAIK there is
no extra charge for ASM and Veritas is very expensive for any/all of their
products. As for support it is better to talk one set of support staff
instead of 2 pointing fingers at each other without having to pay extra for
VOS support.
As we all know Oracle incorporates many new products/features with each new
release, many of which do not pan out. Some of these products however make
our lives much easier and within a few years become very robust and we
wonder how we lived without them in the past. Time will tell which category
ASM will fall into. At least Oracle doesn't force you to use these new
features for many many years after they come out.
For example RMAN is now a very mature product that I whole heartedly support
although when it first came out about 7 years ago I didn't see a need for it
and thought the existing method of doing backups at the time were far
superior. Today, after seven years we can still use hot and cold backup
scripts if we choose too, even with their shortcomings.
I personally like the fact that Oracle is innovative and they keep adding
useful features regardless if they develop it in-house or via acquisition.
If they didn't keep improving their core product(s) they themselves would be
acquired; possibly by a company in Redmond WA and then where would we be? I
would cherish the day when any company programmed out all the routine tasks
of database management. I know we are still far from it (one can dream), but
I believe progress is being made.
Ken Naim
Oracle DBA & Developer
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:14 PM
To: kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 64 node Oracle RAC Cluster (The reality of...)
On 06/22/2005 04:34:04 PM, Kevin Closson wrote:
> >
> >1) Just because a CFS is supported doesn't mean it is the most
> >reliable service of an OS. If a given vintage of ASM or straight
> >shared raw has fewer "moving parts" (shall we say less code path?)
> >than a given CFS,
>
> can you tell me how having a separate instance specifically for ASM
> in addition to your production instances is considered less moving
> parts? As far as code path, raw versus direct IO CFS comparisons are
> old school. ASM has, um, quite a bit of overhead and comms when
> manipulating files (not to be confused with manipulating the contents
> of files).
ASM was advertised as "Veritas killer" (wink, wink) and is, according to
what I read, a database-aware version of LVM. I am slowly getting used to
idea of Oracle devouring its customers (PeopleSoft, BEA Systems, Veritas)
but I still don't see why I wouldn't go with EMC and clustered FS (Polyserve
Matrix, VxFS, OCFS) instead of Oracle. Why would I want to add another layer
of complexity to the database software and not go with proven volume
managers (I believe that both Veritas and EMC have something like that)
which do not drop a file here and there? My problem with Veritas killer is
why would they want to kill Veritas in the first place? Just because Geoff
Squire used to be Ellison's no. 2? I believe that Veritas have brought many
customers to Oracle and that they have an excellent range of products (file
system, backup, replication) which doesn't compete with Oracle. What is
next? Oracle to buy Red Hat? IBM? HP? SUN? The company in Redmond WA? No,
they cannot conquer Redmond, but everything else is in the realm of
possibility.
--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
