Re: ASM versus Filesystems

From: Nilo Segura <nilosegura_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:05:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4ce989e1003080105v19e1680am1a6fa88499dde3db_at_mail.gmail.com>

Yes and No, we have also a large number of Oracle RACs and Single instances on Netapp NFS filers that work very very well. The stability of these systems is amazing and thanks to that I sleep very well :)

Nilo Segura
Oracle Support - IT/DB
CERN - Geneva
Switzerland

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Martin Berger <martin.a.berger_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Stefano,
>
> at least CERN uses ASM.
> https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/PDBService/HAandPerf
> And i do not see ASM as additional layer, it reduces one:
> (ASM instead of Volume Manger + FileSystem).
>
> Can you please specify the 'tests over ASM usually fails', so I can learn
> from these?
> thank you,
> Martin
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 09:34, Stefano Cislaghi <s.cislaghi_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> despite all data and stats IMHO ASM sucks. ASM is an additional layer,
>> managed through an Oracle instance to manage files in a strange manner.I've
>> never seen a big oracle installation, for example in a TLC environment where
>> I work using ASM. All tests over ASM usually fails. Actually use of pure raw
>> devices should be preferable, better if using 8gbit fiber instead iscsi on a
>> 1gb ethernet. Yes, managing raw devices is not easy and usually is not a DBA
>> work. Also, type of storage is really important.
>>
>> Ste
>>
>> --
>> http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu
>>
>>
>
>

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

Received on Mon Mar 08 2010 - 03:05:13 CST