Re: Automatic Storage Management (ASM) - Survey

From: Martin Klier <>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:15:50 +0100
Message-ID: <>


Syed Jaffar Hussain schrieb:
> Following points I would like to ask to the Oracle DBAs:
> 1. Do you use ASM? (YES/NO)


> 2. Which OS - (AIX, SOLARIS, LINUX & Windows)
Linux 64bit (SuSE Enterprise Server)

> 3. Do you use ASM for a single instance? (YES / NO)
Both, but mostly for RAC

> 4. Have you ever performed the migration? non-ASM to ASM? (YES/NO).

> 5. Which redundancy option have you used? (External / Normal / High)
My average RAC has "Normal", but there are "External" ones, too - especially single instance DBs.

> 6. Do you think the Oracle document about ASM is sufficient enough?
> (Sufficient / Bad / Okay)

Bad, and especially in the beginning (2005) Oracle Support has had no clue of ASM.

> 7. Do you think a seaprate ASM administratore is required to manage ASM
> instance? (YES/NO)

Depends on the DBA - in my case I'm a renegade from being Linux system admin, so ASM hasn't been stranger than Oracle in general. :)

> 8. Do you think ASM is very much stable? (YES/NO/CAN'T SAY)

> 9. Do you recommend ASM? (YES/NO)


> 10. Do you think managing ASM is very easy? (YES/NO).
No, but it's worth it.

> Appreciate if you can throw sme inputs from your experience.
At first glance, the bad thing on ASM is the dissicult access to the files from OS shell. But ASMCMD helps a lot, and RMAN does the rest.

There's no replacement for ASM if you need a cluster volume manager with more than one master host and device mirroring.

Furthermore, I like the dynamic file placement in combination with OMF and/or RMAN.

Last but not least, migrating from one storage backend system to another is easy. There's no need for a system downtime, and that's nice if you have to copy several Terrabytes of DB size.


Usn's IT Blog for Linux, Oracle, Asterisk

Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:15:50 CST

Original text of this message