RE: ASM versus Filesystems

From: Crisler, Jon <>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:09:25 -0500
Message-ID: <56211FD5795F8346A0719FEBC0DB0675062051BD_at_mds3aex08.USIEXCHANGE.COM>

The only bad thing about ASM is the learning curve; honestly I think it was fear of the unknown that kept me away from ASM for so long. Once you jump in and get comfortable with it you too will wonder why you stayed away.

If you do backups to disk that are later picked up by a tape program, you will still need a filesystem to hold the backup, or if you use some sort of disk snapshot facility it may not support ASM, but those are the only drawbacks I am aware of. It does require one to get more familier with RMAN. Compared with OCFS2 or other clustering filesystems it seems to be quite reliable, and if you are using it with RAC then you save a bundle on license cost for other clustering filesystem software (like GFS, Veritas etc.).  

Jon - aka "Capt Aubrey"  

[] On Behalf Of patrick obrien Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 5:45 PM
To: Oracle L
Subject: ASM versus Filesystems  

Oracle Admins,

I've been an AIX Admin for years, I'm a junior Oracle DBA and I apologize if the ASM Topic has come up lately. As an AIX Admin, using filesystems seems the best option for me.

Reading up on Oracle's ASM technology, it looks like this could be a great option, primarily for performance reasons. Oracle would then own more real estate, so it can use its tools to better tune the entire system. Its almost too good to be true.

But what are the caveats?

AIX Filesystems offer me control on filesystems/directory sizes, increased performance and systems control. Filesystems are nice when managing backups too. With the advent of the NAS/SAN, maybe I can just hand it all over to Oracle.

Any body not like ASM out there?

Thank you,

Received on Fri Mar 05 2010 - 20:09:25 CST

Original text of this message