Re: ASM or not to ASM
From: Nuno Souto <dbvision_at_iinet.net.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:39:44 +1000
Message-ID: <4E1C1660.1090407_at_iinet.net.au>
Storey, Robert (DCSO) wrote,on my timestamp of 12/07/2011 2:30 AM:
> Going through a 11gR2 new features class. First half day is all about ASM and installing grid infrastructure for a standalone structure,
> 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?
>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:39:44 +1000
Message-ID: <4E1C1660.1090407_at_iinet.net.au>
Storey, Robert (DCSO) wrote,on my timestamp of 12/07/2011 2:30 AM:
> Going through a 11gR2 new features class. First half day is all about ASM and installing grid infrastructure for a standalone structure,
> 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?
>
Single server, Windows, going to 11g without any prior patching knowledge for that release? In your situation, I'd say you'd have to have rocks in your head to go with ASM... Regardless of anyone calling you a "dinossaur".
Before I get abused: I CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY said "in your situation". There is such a thing as CONTEXT in the English language!
-- Cheers Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia dbvision_at_iinet.net.au -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Jul 12 2011 - 04:39:44 CDT