RE: ASM vs FS backups
- From: Don Granaman <DonGranaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "ahmusch@xxxxxxxxx" <ahmusch@xxxxxxxxx>, "veeeraman@xxxxxxxxx" <veeeraman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:15:30 -0600
Another option is OCFS2.
I've been using it for 10gR2 RAC archive logs (all nodes to one directory)
since June 2008 and it hasn't presented any issues - when generating 400+ GB
per day. It looks, smells and works like any filesystem, so your comfort level
shouldn't suffer (much).
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Adam Musch
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:20 AM
To: veeeraman@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: ASM vs FS backups
I don't know if metalink note 413098.1 (Extremely Poor RMAN Backup Performance
to NFS After Upgrade to 10.2) still applies in 11gR2, but it's something to
consider. Even if the backups were on a non-clustered file system LUN that was
mounted to one node, if you lost that node, it should be pretty easy to swing
that disk to the surviving node.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Ram Raman <veeeraman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> We are looking into location for putting the backups in a 2 Node RAC
> 11g. Performing the backups to ASM looks easier because if one node
> goes down, backup location is available from the other node. With NFS
> that will be an issue if one node goes down. On the other hand,
> backing up to file system gives the comfort level of being able to see
> the files from the OS and even copy for cloning to a dev DB or other
> reasons. It seems the backups are going more on the ASM along with the
> datafiles.
>
> Can the listers give their thoughts.
>
> Thanks.
>
--
Adam Musch
ahmusch@xxxxxxxxx
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
