Re: ASM or not to ASM
From: Rich Jesse <rjoralist2_at_society.servebeer.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:38:00 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <8b8f6344e2f5d655145e03c7645e8b19.squirrel_at_society.servebeer.com>
Hi Robert,
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:38:00 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <8b8f6344e2f5d655145e03c7645e8b19.squirrel_at_society.servebeer.com>
Hi Robert,
> My question is why would I, on my single server with a single instance,
> using a SAN for my storage, bother with ASM? Why do all of this overhead
> just for a single instance?
I wouldn't use ASM, not only for the overhead, but because of the unnecessary risk of introducing bugs, some of which are (were?) severe.
I'm interested to see if anyone has any advantages of ASM in your scenario, which is the same boat I'm in. Seems that it would duplicate the functions, especially if the SAN storage has a front-end like IBM's SVC (which we have).
Rich
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Jul 11 2011 - 11:38:00 CDT