Re: asm disks

From: Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:45:02 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJvnOJYVPEXy-SK7evPv0UR3sLswB4V3NGwDpYfkn73wW_q9hA_at_mail.gmail.com>

ASM has the options of normal redundancy, high redundancy, and external redundancy. Every time I have worked with ASM for database storage I have used external redundancy, which means using the hardware RAID functionality instead of the ASM functionality.
I do sometimes use a high redundancy group for the OCR and voting files, in addition to the hardware RAID, since those groups are relatively small.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying most people only use the ASM mirroring if the hardware RAID is unavailable, and I expect that is a best practice, though I do not recall seeing it anywhere.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Mike Hayes <funrx1_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't done anything with ASM disks. Had a consultant come in to do an
> install on a physical server with it's own set of disks. He was all about
> that ASM was the way to go and to not use hardware raid and just let ASM do
> everything for you was best practice. Now I start reading the Storage
> Administrators guide and come across the following in chapter 2:
> Logical unit numbers (LUNs)誘sing hardware RAID functionality to create
> LUNs is a recommended approach. Storage hardware RAID 0+1 or RAID5, and
> other RAID configurations, can be provided to ASM as ASM disks.
>
> It seems to me we have just gone against best practice. For those who have
> experience with ASM do you use hardware raid or not?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input.
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew W. Kerber

'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Mon Feb 04 2013 - 21:45:02 CET