Re: ASM extent and RAC process doubt
From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:52:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1219114370.66289@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
>
> Wise words, as always.
>
> The conceptual difficulty I have with ASM is that Oracle are very good
> at databases, but OS vendors such as IBM are pretty good at volume
> managers.
>
> Serious question: Which should we choose? The Unix admins are of course
> totally opposed to ASM, since they see it as encroaching on their
> territory, but of course that is to be expected.
>
> Palooka
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:52:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1219114370.66289@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
Palooka wrote:
> sybrandb_at_hccnet.nl wrote:
>> >> You shouldn't worry about ASM. Think of ASM as Oracle's volume >> manager. >> Would you ask the same question about the Linux volume manager or >> whatever Unix volume manager? >> I don't think so. >>
>
> Wise words, as always.
>
> The conceptual difficulty I have with ASM is that Oracle are very good
> at databases, but OS vendors such as IBM are pretty good at volume
> managers.
>
> Serious question: Which should we choose? The Unix admins are of course
> totally opposed to ASM, since they see it as encroaching on their
> territory, but of course that is to be expected.
>
> Palooka
ASM is far superior to all of the volume management software available on the market today when hosting Oracle databases. It uses less CPU and is far more "Oracle-aware" than any other that I have seen.
-- Daniel A. Morgan Oracle Ace Director & Instructor University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.orgReceived on Mon Aug 18 2008 - 21:52:59 CDT