Re: ASM of any significant value when switching to Direct NFS / NetApp / non-RAC?

From: Tim Gorman <>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:43:57 -0600
Message-ID: <>


I believe that Nuno (and others) were commenting on the human obstacles, not the technical feasibility.

Having a storage/SysAdmin team doling out file-system mount-points for one group of database environments and LUNs for the other group can be challenging from the perspective of expectations, boundaries, and politics. One of the things that ASM does (and continues to do) is disrupt the decades-old relationship between DBA and storage/SysAdmin teams, and while some organizations will absorb that without any indigestion, others won't.

One of my current customers is an AIX shop where one of the SysAdmins is a forceful personality, and as a result their RAC environment use GPFS not ASM, despite the additional licensing costs. And that is right for them, right now. Over time, I believe Linux will likely replace AIX, people will move on, and ASM will become part of the mix. As well as Cloudera or MongoDB.

The Serenity Prayer is relevant: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

And I like to append the clause: "in time". It provides so many additional nuances to the already nuanced prayer. Rather like adding the phrase "between the sheets" to a fortune cookie's fortune... :-)

Only a few obstacles are technical; most are political.

Hope this helps...

Tim Gorman
consultant -> Evergreen Database Technologies, Inc.
postal     => PO Box 352151, Westminster CO 80035
website    =>
email      =>
mobile     => +1-303-885-4526
fax        => +1-303-484-3608
Lost Data? => for info about DUDE...

On 8/9/2012 9:21 AM, Andrew Kerber wrote:

> I dont understand the commentt about db2/mssql/outlook/wintel/vmware. ASM
> is used for oracle, but it can coexist on the same SAN with DB2 etc. You
> just give ASM raw partitions, and the others file systems. You also reduce
> the chance of user (and DBA) error by giving ASM partitions rather than
> file systems. Now if your SAN is not capable of handing out raw slices
> that is another issue entirely, but that seems kind of unlikely.
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Nuno Souto <> wrote:
>> Connor McDonald wrote,on my timestamp of 9/08/2012 5:49 PM:
>>> For what its worth, we're a NetApp shop on DNFS, and have never had any
>>> justification to use ASM...
>>> Unless there are political games between storage and database admins, why
>>> bother ?
>> Aye, too true. EMC Symmetrix/SRDF here, never felt the need for ASM.
>> Besides: I doubt ASM can handle DB2/MSSQL/Outlook/Wintel/VMware
>> environments as
>> well. EMC can. In the same SAN.
>> Did that last simple fact stop Oracle sales/"experts" from spending the
>> last 5
>> years telling my management I'm a "bad dba" because I don't need to use
>> ASM?
>> Nope...
>>> DNFS gives great performance, file management becomes a doddle (adding
>>> nodes is pretty much plug-any-play), and there's myriad of NetApp goodies
>>> should wish to take advantage of them...
>> It also likely supports a little more than just Oracle databases?
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Nuno Souto
>> in sunny Sydney, Australia
>> --
Received on Thu Aug 09 2012 - 10:43:57 CDT

Original text of this message