Re: asm vs raw - the smackdown
- From: Jeremy Schneider <jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jifjif@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:00:21 -0500
~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
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
