Re: Rac on Linux

On 2006-10-11, Fuzzy <fuzzy.greybeard_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2006-09-13, HansF <Fuzzy.Greybeard_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:18:54 -0700, hpuxrac wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Do you like your database vendor to also provide your file systems?
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> 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.

        It's also a manifestation of the problem I'm talking about.

> 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?

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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'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?

-- 
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com