Re: A Very Basic Oracle on VmWare System

Ian,

Your scenario is a perfect use case for vsan or some other type of hyper-converged storage where the physical storage can be a combination of different types of disk that are local or shared. If designed correctly, it will solve both of your problems.

Seth Miller

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Vmotion is only possible on shared storage. But no, a single physical lun
> does not provide enough protection. Most people use a san for their
> storage in VMware, your configuration is unusual in that it is on local
> disks.
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM, MacGregor, Ian A. <ian_at_slac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Seth both. I don’t see how a single physical LUN provides enough
>> protection. As far as moving of the databases is the even possible with
>> this setup?
>>
>> IAN
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Seth Miller <sethmiller.sm_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ian,
>>
>> Can you clarify your concern? Is the problem that you can't migrate your
>> databases without taking an outage, or that the LUN doesn't offer enough
>> protection for your database files?
>>
>>
>> Seth Miller
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Most people run their VM's over shared storage, which allows for vmotion
>>> and storage vmotion. When I am setting up small stuff, not enterprise, but
>>> want to make sure of the data I use ASM and ASM native data protection, ie
>>> standard redundancy. On the OS side, we can use snapshots.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:05 AM, MacGregor, Ian A. <
>>> ian_at_slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We run our VMs on local disk; i.e, no SAN or NAS. Let’s say physical
>>>> machine a has 24 disks. The standard configuration to create a 22 disk
>>>> RAID 10 physical LUN. Then carve the virtual file systems out of that.
>>>> I don’t like this idea because, to doesn’t provide enough protection
>>>> for the control and online redo log files.
>>>> The reason for setting up one physical LUN is to allow for VM
>>>> migration.
>>>>
>>>> I presently have several small databases running on several VMs.
>>>> I insisted on at least two physical LUNs. The inability to migrate VMs
>>>> means the possibility of additional outages should their hypervisors need
>>>> to be shutdown, and the outage cannot be coordinated with other patching.
>>>> So the only databases I have on VMs are ones which do not have to be up
>>>> 24 X 365
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure how VmWare has become so popular with this restriction.
>>>> We are replacing our present physical machines which host the VMs. The
>>>> main difference is the new servers are all SSD. This is highly
>>>> attractive, but the VmWare administrator has indicated their will be no
>>>> exceptions for Oracle
>>>>
>>>> If it is standard to care the VM file systems out of one physical LUNs
>>>> what is being done to protect the control file and redo logs.
>>>>
>>>> Ian MacGregor
>>>> SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
>>>> ian_at_slac.stanford.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew W. Kerber
>>>
>>> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrew W. Kerber
>
> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
>

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