Re: ASM versus Filesystems
From: Ilmar Kerm <ilmar.kerm_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:52:45 +0200
Message-ID: <ad35b9b91003090252lc6d3364s54505efcce03d115_at_mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Marcin Przepiorowski <pioro1_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Jakub - it depends - there is no one correct/preferred
> solution for every system.
>
> This is what I wrote a few mails before - test both and choose better
> one for your particular system.
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:52:45 +0200
Message-ID: <ad35b9b91003090252lc6d3364s54505efcce03d115_at_mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Marcin Przepiorowski <pioro1_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Jakub - it depends - there is no one correct/preferred
> solution for every system.
>
> This is what I wrote a few mails before - test both and choose better
> one for your particular system.
Storage system configuration also matters... We just rebuilt the entire Oracle database system at a client site and the main reason for using ASM was that client wanted to start using Hitachi Dynamic Provisioning and according to Hitachi tests ASM is pretty much the only good solution for it. We previously used UFS, but that very quickly pre-allocates the entire disk and makes Dynamic Provisioning useless.
http://www.hds.com/assets/pdf/hitachi-dynamic-provisioning-best-practices-webtech.pdf
-- Ilmar Kerm -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Mar 09 2010 - 04:52:45 CST