Re: ASM on Linux with SAN : yes or no ?

From: Andreas Piesk <a.piesk_at_gmx.net>
Date: 23 Aug 2006 15:01:43 -0700
Message-ID: <1156370503.264442.199440@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Matthias Hoys wrote:
>
> (probably IBM or EMC), is it still useful to use ASM as storage for the
> database files ? The sysadmin guys are against using a Linux LVM, since they
> think it is not mature enough. So the only other option would be to use
> "standard" Linux ext3 filesystems for the database files.

Linux LVM is a lot more mature than ASM. ASM is great for RAC as a cluster file system but what would be the advantages of using it for a single instance storing the data on SAN? ext3 on lvm can be resized too, even if it's mounted. it's fast and it's proven. data distribution and redundany are done on SAN level. i don't see any reasons for using ASM. it simply adds overhead without benefit, IMHO.

> Is anyone using ASM on Linux production systems ? Any pro/contras ? What
> about the combination ASM/SAN (double striping) ? ASM overhead versus
> filesystem buffer cache overhead ? What would be the recommended database
> block size when using ASM on Linux ?

i certainly would use directio to bypass the filesystem buffer cache. see http://www.redhat.com/magazine/013nov05/features/oracle/

regards,
-ap Received on Wed Aug 23 2006 - 17:01:43 CDT