Re: Rac on Linux

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> >> You no longer have access to your database using standard
> >> well establish, well known and well understood system level utilities.
> >> Your filesystems are now a blackbox that only Oracle can penetrate.
> >> Your are COMPLETELY dependent on Oracle for everything.
> >
> > As if you aren't anyway.
> >
> > Oracle stores tha data. Are you able to use any tools to get at the
> > data other than Oracle's tools?
> >
> > As long as there is a utility out there that can provide the
> > appropriate backup and recovery - as Oracle's RMAN does - and as long
>
> You mean that thing that pukes if your mount options are just
> the slightest bit out of kilter. RMAN has it's own nasty set of baggage.

No. I mean that thing that nicely backs up and restores database files in a properly configured environment.

Sure RMAN has it's own issues. Not worse, nor better, than other tools I've seen or used.

> > as the vendor of the utility provides support and is willing to provide
> > 24x7 support ... does it really matter?
>
> Will they also support my SAN?
>
> Will they courier me a backplane if that breaks? Will they even
> be the one the tell me that my backplane is what's broken?
>

Deliberately changing the discussion?

Say you buy Veritas CFS because that is an implementation of your 'well known file systrem with all it's tools'. Will Veritas courier you a new backplane?

> >
> > Do you really mind having all eggs in the Oracle basket, if the golden
> > egg (the data itself) is already in that basket.
>
> Not really. I can process those datafiles with any 3rd party tools I like.
> This is pretty handy for things like Spotlight or Shareplex. Otherwise, we would
> all be stuck with just the junk that Oracle can provide.
>
> Some of the more talented DBA's could even extract your data from your
> datafiles manually with a sector editor just based on knowing what the Oracle
> block format it.

Heck - I used to do that regularily as an extreme recovery technique.

ASM just introduces a level of complexity, but a talent could decipher that as well. It's still blocks. It's still possible to dd that to availability.

>
> >
> > Why is 'penetrating that black box' so important? And in these days of
> > SarbOx and other compliance rules, is it a good thing or a bad thing to
> > be able to penetrate that black box?
>
> Without transparency, you can't know if Sarbanes Oxley is actually
> being carried out. SARs actually makes the problem of transparency in the
> system more intense rather than less. It needs to be more open to auditing
> rather than less.
>

One interpretation, for sure.

Flip side happens when the box is verifiably closed.

> >
> > Is this really just a matter of comfort and wanting to keep control?
> > Or is there a real business reason behind the need for that control?
>
> Validating the storage hardware would be a good start.
>
> > (If there is, I can not see it yet - and am interested in the debate.)
> >
> > /HansF (using my gmail account ... as the stoopid hotel network blocks
> > port 110.)
> >
>
> So you really can't see the value in being able to completely
> dissect a system that YOU are responsible for, a system that needs to
> continue functioning in a reasonably robust fashion so that the
> lifestyle that you've grown accustomed to may continue?
>

I can also see the value of formal delegation instead of taking the world on my shoulders.

> I'm not independently wealthy yet. I'm working on it but I'm
> not quite there yet. So I prefer to stay employed and have my
> professional reputation intact.
>
> Thus the question: Once you have ASM, how to you validate
> your SAN before you deploy production databases on it?
>

Again ... with the SAN hardware vendor's tools. Before the database gets put on the SAN.

This has nothing at all to do with the "ASM or no ASM" decision. It seems to have everything to do with "do you trust your vendor?".

After the database is on the SAN, the question is again ... do you trust your vendor to manage the disk on an ongoing basis?

I do - based on my experience. (Going back to Oracle on RAW disk in the early 1980s.)

You apparently do not. Vehemently. Possibly for good, but potentially local, reasons. Received on Wed Oct 11 2006 - 17:34:19 CDT