Re: Oracle 10g (ASM vs Veritas Clustered FS)

On 2004-12-30, Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote:
>
> Sybrand Bakker wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:51:30 GMT, JEDIDIAH <jedi_at_nomad.mishnet>
> wrote:
>>
>> > If something goes wrong, then you've already lost.
>> >
>> > The idea should be to avoid something going wrong to begin with.
>>
>> Amen to that!!!
>>
>> Finally someone who understands what it is all about.
>
> So does that mean things are more likely to go wrong with one vendor v.
> two, or not?
>
> Or things are more likely to go wrong converting from a system that
> doesn't even use RMAN, or not?
>
> How can you possibly avoid things going wrong whatever you do? Mr.

        You don't necessarily have to go running to the vendor everytime something goes wrong. Infact, it's better if you don't have to. Vendor response times can vary and you really don't want to be depending on that.

> Murphy took up residence in a customers' computer room on Monday -
> batteries in UPS decided to pick just before year-end processing to
> start smelling like a sewer and cause the machines to bounce like the
> toilet tank ball in a Tijuana bar. I guess Murphy musta been too
> partied out to come in over the weekend.

        This should not concern the Oracle portion of the system much. Oracle is actually pretty good about tolerating people being too cheap with hardware. The data should survive even if no work is getting done.

-- 
	
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \