Thanks.
Woody Ling
Hong Kong
Sorry that if my description is not clear enough. I mean the os driver
"ASMLib" to build candidate disks. Not asm.
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
> 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
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 |
>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?