Re: Oracle installation on Local disk vs. SAN
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
I don't have too much to add (I've done it both ways and not noticed much difference).
However, at IOUG we were discussing the possibility of just having one set of Oracle binary installs running on an NFS mount and shared betweeen servers. There would have to be some symbolic links created for network parameter and control files, but provisioning time for new machines would be greatly reduced. Additionally, in a bigger environment, you could save a reasonable amount of storage.
I know there are some process issues (patching, versioning) with this, but does anyone see any large technical hurdles?
From: William Wagman <wjwagman_at_ucdavis.edu> To: Oracle-L Freelists <c>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:30:18 PM
Subject: Oracle installation on Local disk vs. SAN
We have just purchased a new very large SAN to which we will be migrating several databases. There are also two new servers which will be connected to this SAN. We will be running RHEL5 and Oracle 11g. We are in the midst of a discussion with the system administrator who wants us to install Oracle on the SAN rather than the local disk on the new server. We, the DBAs would like to have it installed on the local disk, of which there is plenty.
We are wondering about the pros and cons of installing Oracle on the local disk versus the SAN. All comments appreciated.
Univ. of California at Davis
IET Campus Data Center
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Thu May 14 2009 - 14:35:04 CDT