Re: ASM and RAID
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:52:13 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 15, 7:03 pm, Michael Austin <maus..._at_firstdbasource.com> wrote:
> Now that we have sufficiently beat the RAID5 horse to death, let's add a
> twist to the debate. What is your experience either in the lab or real
> sites where you have the virtualization at the array level (pick your
> RAID level) in addition to the virtualization provided by ASM in an
> Oracle eBusiness environment.
> Let's say you have Tier1 storage (high end whatever...) you have 50
> spindles in a RAID0+1 providing ~12.5TB of raw storage that we carve out
> 100 50GB LUNS and present them to our ASM environment. How, in your
> testing and research, does performance either improve or suffer with the
> addition of ASM. The database is scattered across 6 separate disk
> groups with logfiles etc in their own disk group.
I have no experience with that. However, I have weekly (formerly daily) experience with virtualized XP locking up and making a pain in the ass for me to have to fix the data of stupid apps that half-tried to implement multiple levels of transaction, a coming feature never added to SQL that winds up having the effect of serial transactions when there should be a single transaction.
So this has made me sceptical of _any_ type of virtualization.
I'm also sceptical about most places ability to test properly. http://mikerault.blogspot.com/ (for the record, I like Mike and his work going way back, though I've disagreed with some methods, and think he's been unfairly tarred in the past. Whether he is currently biased remains to be seen IMNSHO).
-- @home.com is bogus. At the end of the day, the situation is fairly unique. With all due respect, at this moment in time, I personally do not want to jump on the bandwagon. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely want to take a moment to think outside the box and pick all the low hanging fruit. We are neck deep in this nightmare and need to be on top of this 24/7.Received on Tue Dec 16 2008 - 12:52:13 CST