RE: 10g RAC without vendor clusterware

At a recent Oracle presentation I heard (which doesn't make it true) = that
Oracle purchased much of the code base/logic for ASM from Veritas and = that
the two companies have pretty good relations. Logically due to the = time and
cost involved in developing low level disk subsystem access routines = from
scratch I would think Oracle would have purchased the base under ASM = unless
most of it came from the clustering software rights Oracle had = purchased
from DEC/Compact.

• Mark D Powell --

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Mogens N=F8rrgaard Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:12 AM To: qnxodba_at_gmail.com
Cc: Koen.Van_Langenhove_at_siemens.com; Alexander Gorbachev; CMarquez_at_aarp.org; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: Re: 10g RAC without vendor clusterware

mhthomas wrote:

>Hi,=20
>
>in-line
>
>On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:09:45 +0100, Koen Van Langenhove
><Koen.Van_Langenhove_at_siemens.com> wrote:
> =20
>
>>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.
>>
>> =20
>>
>
>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?=20
>
>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
>
>
> =20
>

ASM is a pre-requisite for the free SE RAC, and we've had several = issues=20
with that here. Not sure why they made it a requisite for the free SE=20 RAC, but not for the non-free EE RAC, but they did.

I think it's a rather clever observation to watch how much effort = Oracle=20
put into fixing ASM bugs. It's often an indication of the internal=20 prorities.

Oracle's idea with ASM is apparently to kill off Veritas (according to=20 some of my sources internally, others disagree).

Mogens

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