Why does ASMLib support linux platform only?

196 views
Skip to first unread message

Woody Ling

unread,
Apr 14, 2008, 11:44:48 PM4/14/08
to
I read many articles which said that ASMLib disk can provide better
performance and easy of management than using RAW devices to form ASM
disk group. Why does ASMLib support linux platform only if it is
better? Raw devices are good enough for building ASM disk grouop in
other platforms such as AIX?

Thanks.
Woody Ling
Hong Kong

news.verizon.net

unread,
Apr 15, 2008, 2:02:41 AM4/15/08
to

"Woody Ling" <wood...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c778407b-380e-4e5e...@d26g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
We are on Solaris x86 and use asm. I am sure it is available for AIX.
Jim


Woody Ling

unread,
Apr 15, 2008, 2:15:59 AM4/15/08
to
On 4月15日, 下午2時02分, "news.verizon.net" <kenned...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Woody Ling" <woodyl...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Sorry that if my description is not clear enough. I mean the os driver
"ASMLib" to build candidate disks. Not asm.

NetComrade

unread,
Apr 15, 2008, 1:04:24 PM4/15/08
to

ASMLib is overrated.
I doubt it adds performance.
It makes things somewhat easier, for linux/raw illeterate people.
It also adds mgt overhead.. can't update kernel w/o updating the pkg.
.......
We run Oracle 9iR2,10gR2, 10g2RAC on RH4/RH5 and Solaris 10 (Sparc)
We use RMAN and remote catalog for backups

Mladen Gogala

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 2:24:52 AM4/16/08
to
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:04:24 +0000, NetComrade wrote:

> ASMLib is overrated.

Any proof to such, rather curageous, claim?

> I doubt it adds performance.

Your doubt is based on evidence?

> It makes things somewhat easier, for linux/raw illeterate people.

Who are "raw illeterate people"? Is Batman one of them?

> It
> also adds mgt overhead.. can't update kernel w/o updating the pkg.

That is true for any separate driver package, ndiswrapper in particular.
So what?

--
Mladen Gogala
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

Toni Schmidbauer

unread,
Apr 16, 2008, 6:38:49 PM4/16/08
to
At Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:44:48 -0700 (PDT),

don't know about performance, but i think the main reason for asmlib
is/was persistent device naming under linux. in pre 2.6/udev times
there was now way to pin down a certain scsi lun to a fixed /dev
entry.

for example if you had 3 scsi disks sda, sdb and sdc and you removed
sdb, on the subsequent reboot device sdc would become sdb. which is
quite a nightmare for the admin.

also with asmlib you do not need to configure raw devices, which makes
life even more convenient.

nowadays, with the help of udev and O_DIRECT used by oracle its not
strict necessary to use asmlib under linux, imho.

hth
toni
--
If you understand what you're doing, you're | toni at stderror dot at
not learning anything. | Toni Schmidbauer
-- Anonymous |

NetComrade

unread,
May 22, 2008, 3:14:15 PM5/22/08
to
On 16 Apr 2008 06:24:52 GMT, Mladen Gogala <mgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:04:24 +0000, NetComrade wrote:
>
>> ASMLib is overrated.
>
>Any proof to such, rather curageous, claim?

Nope :)

>> I doubt it adds performance.
>
>Your doubt is based on evidence?

What can be faster than raw :)?

>> It makes things somewhat easier, for linux/raw illeterate people.
>
>Who are "raw illeterate people"? Is Batman one of them?

An average DBA that never dealt with raw, would be rather 'raw
illtererate'

>> It
>> also adds mgt overhead.. can't update kernel w/o updating the pkg.
>
>That is true for any separate driver package, ndiswrapper in particular.
>So what?

So, why bother using it?

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages