Re: 10g RAC without vendor clusterware

Hi,

in-line

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:09:45 +0100, Koen Van Langenhove <Koen.Van_Langenhove_at_siemens.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> looks like you're a little pessimistic about the ASM instance. Would
> you care telling us why ? It's just another instance, why would be it be
> less reliable than the 'real' instances ? Apart from the fact that's it
> is a relatively new feature of course, because the same goes for any
> other new major version of a regular volume manager.
>

How do you like moving a db from ASM to non-ASM or vice-versa? There are many reasons to move one back and forth so I won't specify all the cases, but its not fun.

How about the posting that ASMLib can not handle DW (>64K) I/O that was posted to the list a couple days ago? My point here is just wait and see how long until oracle fixes this one (in my opinion critical - show stopper) bug. If its long, you can tell Oracle has no priority (e.g. $$income) for ASM. ;-)

How come (in my opionion, almost) no-one (except one popular Oracle employee) is consistently preaching the greatness of ASM? One guy?

BTW, what is your redundant (no single point failure) strategy for ASM?

I'm just curious because one of my clients has a single NetApp and RAC/ASM and the NetApp (and ASM) is the single point of failure until they buy a second NetApp. Of course, if the NetApp (or ASM) fails then they have data loss because they have no access to the files. I know, I know, not a great design, but its easy to get over-confident when it comes to these things. I prefer to call someone 'cautious' rather than 'pessisimistic/unemployed/etc'.

HTH Regards,

Mike

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l