Re: ASM versus Filesystems
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:01:31 -0500
We are using ASM on our block devices, but our new system, which we already bought a NetApp for, will be using DirectNFS. We are testing now and it's working very well so far :)
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Nilo Segura <nilosegura_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes and No, we have also a large number of Oracle RACs and Single
> instances on Netapp NFS filers that work very very well.
> The stability of these systems is amazing and thanks to that I sleep
> very well :)
> Nilo Segura
> Oracle Support - IT/DB
> CERN - Geneva
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Martin Berger <martin.a.berger_at_gmail.com>
> > Stefano,
> > at least CERN uses ASM.
> > https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/PDBService/HAandPerf
> > And i do not see ASM as additional layer, it reduces one:
> > (ASM instead of Volume Manger + FileSystem).
> > Can you please specify the 'tests over ASM usually fails', so I can learn
> > from these?
> > thank you,
> > Martin
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 09:34, Stefano Cislaghi <s.cislaghi_at_gmail.com>
> >> 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
> >> never seen a big oracle installation, for example in a TLC environment
> >> I work using ASM. All tests over ASM usually fails. Actually use of pure
> >> 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
> >> 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-lReceived on Mon Mar 08 2010 - 10:01:31 CST