Matthias Hoys wrote:
> "DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message
> news:1122953947.776480_at_yasure...
>
>>Andreas Sheriff wrote:
>>
>>>"Moe" <mwahidi_at_emanagelaw.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1122922686.586023.163080_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The thing is that my SAN already have RAID and RAID 10, so do you
>>>>think it's ok if i have ASM on top of the RAID?.
>>>>Im thinking of going with raw for the two CRS files and ASM for the
>>>>rest.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>>
>>>>Moe
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Aren't ASM and raid redundant?
>>>
>>>Hardware based RAID's are ALWAYS better than software based RAID's
>>>because
>>>the hardware based RAID has its own CPU.
>>
>>Redundant? Not at all. It is important to remember that ASM does a lot
>>more than a simple LVM (Logical Volume Manager). Sure ASM creates disk
>>groups and failover groups but it also load balances when you add and
>>remove disks. RAID isn't going to do that.
>>
>>ASM will also let you move from one array to another by sequentially
>>adding disk from one and subtracting from the other. RAID won't do that
>>either.
>>--
>>Daniel A. Morgan
>>http://www.psoug.org
>>damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
>>(replace x with u to respond)
>
>
> Daniel,
>
> If you are presenting the SAN volume to the server as 1 LUN, so for example
> in AIX, 1 hdisk device, will ASM still be able to do any load balancing ?
>
> Matthias
Never 1 LUN ... if for purposes of i/o alone.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Received on Tue Aug 02 2005 - 10:22:04 CDT
