ASM of any significant value when switching to Direct NFS / NetApp / non-RAC?
From: Dana Nibby <dananrg_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1344343508.94155.YahooMailNeo_at_web113514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
We currently use ASM for all instances on a block storage SAN. The sysadmins and storage admins are migrating all 11g instances over to NetApp storage with Direct NFS (RHEL on VMWare is in the mix as well--and VMWare is new for us; so is SMO). They're strongly advising us to discontinue using ASM in this new environment. Their Rationale: no demonstrable value worth the complexity of (them) managing ASM; that the ASM functionality isn't being used. And that ASM made sense when using a block storage SAN environment but not in the new one. "Why would you layer an LVM atop an LVM?" they ask. Since we always specify External Redundany for ASM diskgroups, etc.
Although I'm certain there is a lot of functionalty crossover, where do Direct NFS and ASM capabilities *not* intersect? In other words, can any compelling case be made to keep ASM in a NetApp/Direct NFS environment? If so, which features of ASM make the case (if there's one to be made). As DBAs without root or storage access, will we lose any ability (e.g. file mgt) to do things ourselves with Direct NFS that we had with ASM? Would the sysadmins and/or storage admins be taking over more of the workload under Direct NFS? I certainly don't want to persist something that adds another layer of abstraction if there's no clear value--what is implemented must be supported. But I want to be sure we DBAs aren't handicapping ourselves before we agree to "no more ASM" given the separation the duties, etc.
Anyone here, in a non-RAC environment, continue to use ASM with Direct NFS? Though there's evidently no reason why you can't have both, I'm wondering what the strongest case there is in favor of using both. And what's the strongest case for jettisoning ASM in our new environment? The same one already made above?
Best,
Dana
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1344343508.94155.YahooMailNeo_at_web113514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
We currently use ASM for all instances on a block storage SAN. The sysadmins and storage admins are migrating all 11g instances over to NetApp storage with Direct NFS (RHEL on VMWare is in the mix as well--and VMWare is new for us; so is SMO). They're strongly advising us to discontinue using ASM in this new environment. Their Rationale: no demonstrable value worth the complexity of (them) managing ASM; that the ASM functionality isn't being used. And that ASM made sense when using a block storage SAN environment but not in the new one. "Why would you layer an LVM atop an LVM?" they ask. Since we always specify External Redundany for ASM diskgroups, etc.
Although I'm certain there is a lot of functionalty crossover, where do Direct NFS and ASM capabilities *not* intersect? In other words, can any compelling case be made to keep ASM in a NetApp/Direct NFS environment? If so, which features of ASM make the case (if there's one to be made). As DBAs without root or storage access, will we lose any ability (e.g. file mgt) to do things ourselves with Direct NFS that we had with ASM? Would the sysadmins and/or storage admins be taking over more of the workload under Direct NFS? I certainly don't want to persist something that adds another layer of abstraction if there's no clear value--what is implemented must be supported. But I want to be sure we DBAs aren't handicapping ourselves before we agree to "no more ASM" given the separation the duties, etc.
Anyone here, in a non-RAC environment, continue to use ASM with Direct NFS? Though there's evidently no reason why you can't have both, I'm wondering what the strongest case there is in favor of using both. And what's the strongest case for jettisoning ASM in our new environment? The same one already made above?
Best,
Dana
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Aug 07 2012 - 07:45:08 CDT