>
>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).
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Wed Jun 22 2005 - 16:39:19 CDT
