Re: ASM of any significant value when switching to Direct NFS / NetApp / non-RAC?

From: Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:21:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJvnOJZqimou3U_LFeo=YgpLD4bPbs8-Txxf2HDTdk+7Xft+ig_at_mail.gmail.com>

I dont understand the commentt about db2/mssql/outlook/wintel/vmware. ASM is used for oracle, but it can coexist on the same SAN with DB2 etc. You just give ASM raw partitions, and the others file systems. You also reduce the chance of user (and DBA) error by giving ASM partitions rather than file systems. Now if your SAN is not capable of handing out raw slices that is another issue entirely, but that seems kind of unlikely. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Nuno Souto <dbvision_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Connor McDonald wrote,on my timestamp of 9/08/2012 5:49 PM:
> > For what its worth, we're a NetApp shop on DNFS, and have never had any
> > justification to use ASM...
> > Unless there are political games between storage and database admins, why
> > bother ?
>
> Aye, too true. EMC Symmetrix/SRDF here, never felt the need for ASM.
> Besides: I doubt ASM can handle DB2/MSSQL/Outlook/Wintel/VMware
> environments as
> well. EMC can. In the same SAN.
> Did that last simple fact stop Oracle sales/"experts" from spending the
> last 5
> years telling my management I'm a "bad dba" because I don't need to use
> ASM?
> Nope...
>
>
> > DNFS gives great performance, file management becomes a doddle (adding
> > nodes is pretty much plug-any-play), and there's myriad of NetApp goodies
> > should wish to take advantage of them...
>
> It also likely supports a little more than just Oracle databases?
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> in sunny Sydney, Australia
> dbvision_at_iinet.net.au
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew W. Kerber

'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'


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

Received on Thu Aug 09 2012 - 10:21:02 CDT