Re: ASM or not to ASM

From: K R <kp0773_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:05:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABPz0xgShH2Tb2=t+MNjq7T99TPw+Z8J7S11+PE3SwsihA43Sw_at_mail.gmail.com>

11g rename asm diskgroup ? something similar

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Martin Bach <development_at_the-playground.de>wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I have followed this interesting thread for a while now, there's one point
> that hasn't been mention IMO when it comes to ASM (which I use everywhere):
> you cannot mount the same disks on the same box.
>
> Why does this matter? Assume you have a local physical standby on your
> UAT/TEST array, because no one wants to spend money on inter-SAN
> replication. If you use this to create clones on the same array to refresh
> a
> test environment, the ASM headers will of course be cloned as well. Now
> since that box the physical standby runs on is already licensed business
> decided to use the very same box for a test database instance. That isn't
> easily possible, because the headers of source and clone are identical, and
> ASM gets really confused. The solution was to put that test database into a
> virtual machine and thus separate the LUNs.
>
> This probably doesn't apply to many people but it was nevertheless
> interesting. Before migrating to ASM the database was on OCFS and there was
> no problem mounting the LUNs on a different mount point.
>
> Martin Bach
> Martin Bach Consulting Ltd
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/martincarstenbach
> http://martincarstenbach.wordpress.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
> > On Behalf Of Nuno Souto
> ...
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

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

Received on Wed Jul 13 2011 - 12:05:21 CDT