Return-Path: Delivered-To: 2-oracle-l@orafaq.com Received: (qmail 14847 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2007 11:58:41 -0600 Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net (HELO turing.freelists.org) (206.53.239.180) by 69.64.49.119 with SMTP; 7 Dec 2007 11:58:41 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 4A06C7D554B; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03232-03; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id BD2FA7D56FB; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:58:40 -0500 (EST) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:56:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id B2A107D53ED for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:56:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02576-01 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:56:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from usi.net (ms3aeo04.usi.net [209.135.62.29]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 1BEA37D1DC3 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:56:30 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Subject: RE: Cluster File System Versus ASM for RAC Deployment in Production?... Pros & Cons Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:56:27 -0500 Message-ID: <56211FD5795F8346A0719FEBC0DB0675017A7508@mds3aex08.USIEXCHANGE.COM> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cluster File System Versus ASM for RAC Deployment in Production?... Pros & Cons References: <69E1360E54B50C4A828A136C158E4742036A4E7514@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> <69E1360E54B50C4A828A136C158E4742036A4E751B@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> <69E1360E54B50C4A828A136C158E4742036A4E7536@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> From: "Crisler, Jon" To: "Oracle-l" X-archive-position: 3789 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: Jon.Crisler@usi.com Precedence: normal Reply-to: Jon.Crisler@usi.com List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: oracle-l X-List-ID: oracle-l List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at localhost.localdomain I think this is a big factor- VCS can cost a lot of money, while ASM is free. OCFS2 has an advantage in one area- training, because it appears as a standard file system. Once you get past the initial install, it looks the same as a regular filesystem. Its also free. ASM is reportedly faster that OCFS2 or cluster file systems, but I have not seen that in the real world (yet). Its also free. -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Espinoza Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:16 AM To: VIVEK_SHARMA@infosys.com; Oracle-l Subject: Re: Cluster File System Versus ASM for RAC Deployment in Production?... Pros & Cons Any new thing requires training. Big shops tend to use cluster file systems such as VCS for many other things like nfs, besides rac. So, if there is an expertise in VCS, and if they dont care much abt licensing costs, go ahead and use vcs. > Additionally does ASM administration need additional Skill Set / Training > versus administration on Cluster File System(CFS), for RAC? > > If so, in what context? -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l