With the price of disk space fairly cheap and the reliability issues and
this is not really a lot of space - and fairly static at that - I think you
are correct. Are you really going to save any money, make admin easier,
make the system more reliable, have better performance? What is the
business need besides someone's whim?
Jim
--
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
it out.
"SLSiebenaler" <sieb_at_cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:K1Cga.19$JI.192653_at_twister.neo.rr.com...
> Ok, here's the environment. Our client outsources operations to the
company
> I work for.... (major point)
>
> We run PROD on four 4-node Veritas clusters attached to EMC Symmetrix
SANs.
> The $ORACLE_HOMEs are on either local storage on the Sun servers (or SAN
> storage), which we have a 16gb mount point for the various flavors of
> Oracle. The QA environment is two 5-node clusters. We run 7.3.4, 8.1.x,
> and 9.2.x in the enterprise. It's a lot of work keeping patches up to
> snuff, but I like the fact that we can patch a home that's not being used,
> then fail the cluster to the patched node. Simple....
>
> Now, our "client" thinks we can save disk space (and money) and
> administration headache by consolidating the Oracle binaries on a
separate,
> single NAS device. Now for Oracle Client installs, I'm not too worried.
> But for running an instance, I have major concerns, one of which is the
> "loss of NAS" incident, which may cause all instances to crash. Secondly,
> if a patch is needed, we would have to shutdown all the instances for a
> given ORACLE_HOME. Third, they propose putting /var/opt/oracle on NAS
also.
> This means that files like "oratab" and "listener.ora" would have to
contain
> entries for all the databases. Also, we need to address issues with
> symbolic links for the oracle password file, the spfile, pfile, and
listener
> log files, as well as the instance lk file (in the $ORACLE_HOME/dbs
> directory).
>
> Quite frankly, I'm against the whole idea, but I want to present a good
> argument for keeping things as they are. But our client really thinks
this
> is a "progressive move".
>
> SLS...
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 27 2003 - 08:54:05 CST
