Re: ASM versus Filesystems
- From: Nilo Segura <nilosegura@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: martin.a.berger@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:05:13 +0100
Yes and No, we have also a large number of Oracle RACs and Single
instances on Netapp NFS filers that work very very well.
The stability of these systems is amazing and thanks to that I sleep
very well :)
Nilo Segura
Oracle Support - IT/DB
CERN - Geneva
Switzerland
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Martin Berger <martin.a.berger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stefano,
>
> at least CERN uses ASM.
> https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/PDBService/HAandPerf
> And i do not see ASM as additional layer, it reduces one:
> (ASM instead of Volume Manger + FileSystem).
>
> Can you please specify the 'tests over ASM usually fails', so I can learn
> from these?
> thank you,
> Martin
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 09:34, Stefano Cislaghi <s.cislaghi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> despite all data and stats IMHO ASM sucks. ASM is an additional layer,
>> managed through an Oracle instance to manage files in a strange manner.I've
>> never seen a big oracle installation, for example in a TLC environment where
>> I work using ASM. All tests over ASM usually fails. Actually use of pure raw
>> devices should be preferable, better if using 8gbit fiber instead iscsi on a
>> 1gb ethernet. Yes, managing raw devices is not easy and usually is not a DBA
>> work. Also, type of storage is really important.
>>
>> Ste
>>
>> --
>> http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu
>>
>>
>
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
