April 15, 14:51

Oracle on ASM vs Oracle on NFS.

Пост от Jeffrey Steiner, архитектора из NetApp, автора многих TR по работе Oracle. В целом из названия всё ясно. Накидаю цитат, которые доносят основную мысль поста.

“Broadly speaking, if someone has a massive FC SAN infrastructure in place and ASM was already embedded in established business practices, I wouldn’t try to change that. It would be a waste of money and it would be throwing away staff experience.

If a project involves a wholly new infrastructure, I’d rather go with an IP protocol. It costs less, and it’s easier to manage, especially where Cloud is involved.”

“Personally, if I needed to design an architecture for 3 or 4 large mission-critical, IO-intensive production databases I’d probably use ASM over FC-SCSI or FC-NVMe. If the requirement is a 3000 database DBaaS project that changes frequently, I’d probably choose NFS.”

Больше деталей с плюсами и минусами каждого из подходов по ссылке.

#Oracle #NFS #ASM


Oracle on ASM vs Oracle on NFS

G’day. I’ve had a lot of discussions lately about whether or not to keep using ASM. Origins of ASM Jump back to days of Oracle 9. If you had an enterprise database, it was almost certai…