Re: ASM versus Filesystems

From: Thomas Roach <troach_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:59:38 -0500
Message-ID: <b86ffce61003080759p3de958dcw180b6b2eea29a92f_at_mail.gmail.com>

I respectfully disagree with this statement. If you are using raw devices, you should be using ASM. If you are doing RAC on Oracle Standard Edition, you have to use ASM. Not many people use Standard Edition, but for cost conscious companies, it is a viable and cost effective alternative. This is from the admin guide:

"To create an *Oracle RAC* database *using* the *Oracle* Database 10g *Standard Edition*, you *must use ASM* for your datafile storage."

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/rac.102/b14197/storage.htm

Also, I have personally worked on 2 DW's, each over 30TB with ASM and it worked fine. Have many systems on ASM without any issues and it spreads the I/O out beautifully as well as allowed me to move from an old san to a new one without any downtime whatsoever.

Does ASM have it's share of bugs? In the beginning, definitely, but it's pretty solid now. I am sure people still get bit by bugs which Oracle is fixing via patches, but who doesn't have their share of bugs? At least they are getting fixed.

Tom

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Stefano Cislaghi <s.cislaghi_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> despite all data and stats IMHO ASM sucks. ASM is an additional layer,
> managed through an Oracle instance to manage files in a strange manner.I've
> never seen a big oracle installation, for example in a TLC environment where
> I work using ASM. All tests over ASM usually fails. Actually use of pure raw
> devices should be preferable, better if using 8gbit fiber instead iscsi on a
> 1gb ethernet. Yes, managing raw devices is not easy and usually is not a DBA
> work. Also, type of storage is really important.
>
> Ste
>
> --
> http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu
>
>
>
>

-- 
Thomas Roach
813-404-6066
troach_at_gmail.com

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

Received on Mon Mar 08 2010 - 09:59:38 CST