RE: Q:To ASM or Not to ASM

>>>Every technology is new for some time. That does not mean
>>>that we should not use that.

Very few features affect a wholesale change to the fundamental underpinnings of a product though. Oracle has managed file contents for 20 years, not files.

>>>I see ASM is going to replace most of the expen$ive volume
>>>managers in next versions and after some time, ASM may be
>>>the _only_ storage option for the data files.. But that will
>>>be a long way from now. ASM is improving and will be an
>>>accptable solution in many data certers.

Since 85% of all data in digital form is unstructured (not in RDBMS), and there are non-Oracle databases too, real datacenters need general purpose volume management. We have an oil and gas company with 166TB of unstructured data...I don't think ASM helps them much. Even Oracle related files need filesystems (imp/exp/loader/ext tables, executables, compressed archived redo) etc....

we shouldn't forget that there is more in the datacenter than oracle datafiles/online redo/control files.
>>>
>>>You don't need to tune the ASM. It is SAME concept.

Is it SAME (0+1), or MASE(1+0)? That is important to consider.

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l