Path: text.usenetserver.com!out02a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: hpuxrac <johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: Re: ASM Question - Best Practice
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4a542111-fcb5-4a13-bb7e-e93b0cc6def1@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
References: <uP_0k.61061$Ex2.39454@newsfe12.ams2> <X701k.6367$Ri.3967@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com> 
 <0487a1e4-164d-4f1c-aa8b-527ca0a2d716@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> 
 <1212770899.729244@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.241.105.118
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1212797348 5453 127.0.0.1 (7 Jun 2008 00:09:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 00:09:08 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.241.105.118; 
 posting-account=_6ry2goAAAB8CmCVzS5u_8_rocyBncPn
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; 
 .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR 
 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: usenetserver.com comp.databases.oracle.server:445400
X-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:09:08 EDT (text.usenetserver.com)

On Jun 6, 12:48=A0pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote:

snip

> > Most any competent company that has a storage system that does RAID
> > well uses external redundancy for ASM.
>
> > This sounds like you made up your answer.
>
> > The mirroring that ASM "can do" is mostly applicable to environments
> > with cheaper disk subsystems.
>
> Hardly a made up answer. I can, within a few minutes of my office, take
> you to amazingly large publicly held companies with very expensive
> arrays doing precisely what Michael stated.
>
> >> Best Practice at most companies will vary depending on the criticality
> >> of the data being stored.
>

snip

OK let's say specically RAID 1/0.  I guess there are some people
running RAID 5.

Why don't you post your list of people running RAID 1/0 on enterprise
level storage that aren't using external redundancy?

Most of the people that are running RAID 5 when they have other
options and also using ASM to mirror instead of using some other RAID
level ... I guess there are various conceivable reasons ... many of
them probably though not so well thought out imho.