Re: new database server build - sanity check

From: Fuad Arshad <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:46:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

we use Zfs mostly for backup functions etc but we have been stable with Solaris 11 (not 11.1) for a while we use EMC SAN as well but we prefer ASM. i dont believe 9.2 is supported on anything above 10 so that might be your way for your unix admin to back down.
i hope this is going to be a dev/test/prod so you can remove any kinks but if solaris 11.1 is as new as you say i would be a little wary

From: ~Jeff~ <>
To: Fuad Arshad <>; "" <>
Sent: Thu, January 24, 2013 7:23:45 PM
Subject: Re: new database server build - sanity check

Thanks Fuad.

ZFS for everything , including the databases (9.2 thru 11.1 for now).

ASM wasnt really considered, as we are using EMC SAN and we're happy for storage people to handle those functions.

And note, this is solaris 11.1 , which has only been out for a few months! We have already expereienced some major problems (only 1 / 3 due to solaris though) and wonder if an alternative would be more stable.

Whats your experience been like ?


On 25 January 2013 13:21, Fuad Arshad <> wrote:

A couple of questions
>are you going to use ZFS for the database it self or just the software.
>Solaris 11 has been out for a while and is a supported platform (obviously) for
>the database.
>ZFS if tuned right is a good database filesystem but why not ASM for database .
>----- Original Message ----
>From: ~Jeff~ <>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thu, January 24, 2013 6:16:46 PM
>Subject: new database server build - sanity check
>Hi all
>Your opinions please!
>We are embarking on a new database server build - the sysadmin is keen on
>Solaris 11.1 and ZFS on the T4-1 server. We will use zones for environment
>segregation and license mitigation.
>While I've used sol9 and 10 without absolutely no issues before, using such
>a new OS version with a relatively non-mainstream filesystem seems ...
>Am I being too apprehensive, or is this a reasonable concern ? I'm
>interested in any real-life experience, rather than the marketing bullet
>points. Discuss. :)
>thanks in advance -

Received on Fri Jan 25 2013 - 02:46:41 CET

Original text of this message