If price is not an issue, which is a better solution to
use?  Oracle 10g w/Automated Storage Manager or Veritas's
Enterprise Storage Foundation (with clustered filesystem).

Big disadvantage I see to ASM is that we can only use
raw volumes & depend entirely on RMAN for backups/restores.

This is for 3 Sun v440's that hope to run Oralce 10g RAC.

-JV

jeff_vosburg@aliases.com wrote:
> If price is not an issue, which is a better solution to
> use?  Oracle 10g w/Automated Storage Manager or Veritas's
> Enterprise Storage Foundation (with clustered filesystem).
> 
> Big disadvantage I see to ASM is that we can only use
> raw volumes & depend entirely on RMAN for backups/restores.


I can't answer your actual question, because I'm not overly familiar 
with the Veritas option. But 'only using RAW' and 'depending entirely on 
RMAN for backups/restoress' don't strike me as major drawbacks. Quite 
the contrary. :-)

Bear in mind that ASM is a good deal more than 'friendly raw'. The data 
redundancy features alone are worth having in my book.

Regards
HJR

In comp.databases.oracle.server Howard J. Rogers <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote:

> I can't answer your actual question, because I'm not overly familiar 
> with the Veritas option. But 'only using RAW' and 'depending entirely on 
> RMAN for backups/restoress' don't strike me as major drawbacks. Quite 
> the contrary. :-)

I'm not a DBA, just trying to help one out.  We don't use rman much,
and generally rely on cold backups.  I know, everywhere else people
seem to use RMAN, our DBA's are slow like that :)

As a sysadmin I'm not big on raw volumes but unfortunately our standards
are pretty loose in this area.
 
> Bear in mind that ASM is a good deal more than 'friendly raw'. The data 
> redundancy features alone are worth having in my book.

Yeah, from what I can see...ASM has a lot of nice features but everything
we have goes on EMC DMX's and Veritas also offers similar solutions.

At least, from what I can see (hence my posting).

jeff_vosburg@aliases.com wrote:

> If price is not an issue, which is a better solution to
> use?  Oracle 10g w/Automated Storage Manager or Veritas's
> Enterprise Storage Foundation (with clustered filesystem).
> 
> Big disadvantage I see to ASM is that we can only use
> raw volumes & depend entirely on RMAN for backups/restores.
> 
> This is for 3 Sun v440's that hope to run Oralce 10g RAC.
> 
> -JV

If something goes wrong would you rather have two different
software companies pointing fingers at each other or have
the entire problem solved with a single iTAR?

It isn't just about money.
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

jeff_vosburg@aliases.com wrote:

> In comp.databases.oracle.server Howard J. Rogers <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I can't answer your actual question, because I'm not overly familiar 
>>with the Veritas option. But 'only using RAW' and 'depending entirely on 
>>RMAN for backups/restoress' don't strike me as major drawbacks. Quite 
>>the contrary. :-)
> 
> 
> I'm not a DBA, just trying to help one out.  We don't use rman much,
> and generally rely on cold backups.  I know, everywhere else people
> seem to use RMAN, our DBA's are slow like that :)
> 
> As a sysadmin I'm not big on raw volumes but unfortunately our standards
> are pretty loose in this area.
>  
> 
>>Bear in mind that ASM is a good deal more than 'friendly raw'. The data 
>>redundancy features alone are worth having in my book.
> 
> 
> Yeah, from what I can see...ASM has a lot of nice features but everything
> we have goes on EMC DMX's and Veritas also offers similar solutions.
> 
> At least, from what I can see (hence my posting).

There is a lot of value in ASM. Balancing i/o load when new volumes are
added or volumes are removed being you should consider: Veritas can't
touch it.

But our DBAs should be using RMAN and if they are not management should
consider finding some new DBAs.
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message 
news:41d33d55$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> jeff_vosburg@aliases.com wrote:
>
>> In comp.databases.oracle.server Howard J. Rogers <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I can't answer your actual question, because I'm not overly familiar with 
>>>the Veritas option. But 'only using RAW' and 'depending entirely on RMAN 
>>>for backups/restoress' don't strike me as major drawbacks. Quite the 
>>>contrary. :-)
>>
>>
>> I'm not a DBA, just trying to help one out.  We don't use rman much,
>> and generally rely on cold backups.  I know, everywhere else people
>> seem to use RMAN, our DBA's are slow like that :)
>>
>> As a sysadmin I'm not big on raw volumes but unfortunately our standards
>> are pretty loose in this area.
>>
>>>Bear in mind that ASM is a good deal more than 'friendly raw'. The data 
>>>redundancy features alone are worth having in my book.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, from what I can see...ASM has a lot of nice features but everything
>> we have goes on EMC DMX's and Veritas also offers similar solutions.
>>
>> At least, from what I can see (hence my posting).
>
> There is a lot of value in ASM. Balancing i/o load when new volumes are
> added or volumes are removed being you should consider: Veritas can't
> touch it.
>

Does ASM have any value if the filesystems are mounted on SAN devices, and 
the i/o load management is done by the storage processors of the SAN box ?

Matthias


> But our DBAs should be using RMAN and if they are not management should
> consider finding some new DBAs.
> -- 
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damorgan@x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond) 

In comp.unix.solaris Access <idmwarpzone_NOSPAM_@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Does ASM have any value if the filesystems are mounted on SAN devices, and 
> the i/o load management is done by the storage processors of the SAN box ?

From what I've read, ASM isn't a filesystem like UFS or VxFS.  It is a 
raw volume but it can be accessed from many systems on the SAN.

So SysA, SysB & SysC all access the same LUNs and can read/write to them.
ASM handles it all.

I've used clustered filesystems (QFS & Adic's CentraVision) before that do
this but from what I"m reading about ASM it appears to be a clustered
volume (not FS).

Is that the case?  Or is there an actual filesystem we define as 'asm' in
/etc/vfstab that gets mounted by all hosts?

Thanks for the feedback so far, it is appreciated.  I agree that having one
vendor to go to for support is a big factor in moving this way.

And yes, our DBAs should be fired :-)

Access wrote:

>>There is a lot of value in ASM. Balancing i/o load when new volumes are
>>added or volumes are removed being you should consider: Veritas can't
>>touch it.
> 
> Does ASM have any value if the filesystems are mounted on SAN devices, and 
> the i/o load management is done by the storage processors of the SAN box ?
> 
> Matthias

I would check with Oracle and the "Oracle" experts at the SAN's OEM. It
could easily be different for different configurations. I just don't
know enough to comment generically.
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.databases.oracle.server.]
On 2004-12-29, DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> jeff_vosburg@aliases.com wrote:
>
>> If price is not an issue, which is a better solution to
>> use?  Oracle 10g w/Automated Storage Manager or Veritas's
>> Enterprise Storage Foundation (with clustered filesystem).
>> 
>> Big disadvantage I see to ASM is that we can only use
>> raw volumes & depend entirely on RMAN for backups/restores.
>> 
>> This is for 3 Sun v440's that hope to run Oralce 10g RAC.
>> 
>> -JV
>
> If something goes wrong would you rather have two different

	If something goes wrong, then you've already lost.

	The idea should be to avoid something going wrong to begin with.

> software companies pointing fingers at each other or have
> the entire problem solved with a single iTAR?
>
> It isn't just about money.


-- 
	
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:51:30 GMT, JEDIDIAH <jedi@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.


--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

Sybrand Bakker wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:51:30 GMT, JEDIDIAH <jedi@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.
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.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Worms are for wimps:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041230/news_1n30mezcal.html

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.databases.oracle.server.]
> On 2004-12-29, DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
>>jeff_vosburg@aliases.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If price is not an issue, which is a better solution to
>>>use?  Oracle 10g w/Automated Storage Manager or Veritas's
>>>Enterprise Storage Foundation (with clustered filesystem).
>>>
>>>Big disadvantage I see to ASM is that we can only use
>>>raw volumes & depend entirely on RMAN for backups/restores.
>>>
>>>This is for 3 Sun v440's that hope to run Oralce 10g RAC.
>>>
>>>-JV
>>
>>If something goes wrong would you rather have two different
> 
> 
> 	If something goes wrong, then you've already lost.
> 
> 	The idea should be to avoid something going wrong to begin with.

And when, in the real world, you achieve that no doubt you will
receive international recognition. The rest of us keep opening
TARs.

Of all the laws ever made by man ... Murphy's is still the supreme rule.
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.databases.oracle.server.]
> On 2004-12-29, DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
>>jeff_vosburg@aliases.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If price is not an issue, which is a better solution to
>>>use?  Oracle 10g w/Automated Storage Manager or Veritas's
>>>Enterprise Storage Foundation (with clustered filesystem).
>>>
>>>Big disadvantage I see to ASM is that we can only use
>>>raw volumes & depend entirely on RMAN for backups/restores.
>>>
>>>This is for 3 Sun v440's that hope to run Oralce 10g RAC.
>>>
>>>-JV
>>
>>If something goes wrong would you rather have two different
> 
> 
> 	If something goes wrong, then you've already lost.
> 
> 	The idea should be to avoid something going wrong to begin with.
> 


Things _do_ break from time to time. (Disks, fans, power supplies, 
software bugs etc)
Multiple lines of defense, and a system to ensure that a failure at one 
point doesn't take down our whole operation must be in place.

Joel Garry wrote:
> Sybrand Bakker wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:51:30 GMT, JEDIDIAH <jedi@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.
> 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.
> 

Mr Murphy is an optimist.


-- 
A prosperous 2005,
Frank van Bortel

In article <_LBAd.23805$LW1.14845@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
 <jeff_vosburg@aliases.com> wrote:
>If price is not an issue, which is a better solution to
>use?  Oracle 10g w/Automated Storage Manager or Veritas's
>Enterprise Storage Foundation (with clustered filesystem).

I've seen ASM on solaris and it sux.

Look at Suns recent QFS for shared RAC fs announcements.

/regs
Fredrik
-- 
Fredrik Lundholm   
dol @ ce.chalmers.se
				 

In comp.unix.solaris Fredrik Lundholm <dol@ce.chalmers.se> wrote:
> I've seen ASM on solaris and it sux.
> Look at Suns recent QFS for shared RAC fs announcements.

QFS is rock solid.  I've used it in clustered NFS environments
with 3.5 releaes (read only environment).

That said, Veritas has so much to offer an Oracle DB and it's
clustered FS is also solid.

-Dan 

In comp.databases.oracle.server DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
 
> There is a lot of value in ASM. Balancing i/o load when new volumes are
> added or volumes are removed being you should consider: Veritas can't
> touch it.

This wil more than likely be handled by the SAN. Are there some benchmarks
demonstrating significant performance gains over Veritas Storage
Foundation?
 
> But our DBAs should be using RMAN and if they are not management should
> consider finding some new DBAs.

Agreed.  But I don't see the point of ASM.  Veritas is very mature
in this area.  Most of Oracle's solutions are all volumes, not
filesystems & most sysadmins cringe at the idea of raw volumes.

Is ASM still raw volumes?  Isn't this why RMAN is the only option?
Or can I actually run:

	mkfs -o largefiles -F ASM /dev/vx/rdsk/oradg/somevol

Oracle may as well OEM a copy of Storage Foundation and encourage 
development on Linux from Veritas since Linux seems to be big in
their future.

The idea of DBA's doing OS related work (shrinking/expanding volumes etc..)
is about as scary as sysadmins doing database architecture.

-Dan

Daniel_F@addamark.com wrote:

> In comp.databases.oracle.server DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
[...]
> 
> Is ASM still raw volumes?  Isn't this why RMAN is the only option?
> 

Use OCFS if you want cooked filesystem for clusters. (Not available for 
Solaris AFAIK).

> 
> The idea of DBA's doing OS related work (shrinking/expanding volumes etc..)
> is about as scary as sysadmins doing database architecture.
> 
> -Dan
> 

Disagree. I've worked with some sysadmins who were mostly clueless about 
Veritas VX/VM and VCS configurations they had inherited from external 
consultants, so I had to figure out the hard parts myself.

Besides, Oracle is moving more and more of the OS under their wing, so 
pretty soon sysadmins will be the folks who just swap out hard drives 
and memory chips, and do password re-sets... ;-)  (Having supported Unix 
longer than Oracle, I'm not saying I'm in favor of this!)

The OP asked about Solaris, which I have worked with under favorable 
circumstances for many years, but it's interesting how most of the stuff 
I see from Oracle nowadays regarding storage management is focused on Linux:

http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/linux/pdf/rac_wp.pdf

The following document also promises to help answer the OP's questions, 
although skimming through it I'm not sure it really does a blow by blow 
comparison with Veritas:

http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/asm/pdf/asm_bestpractices_9_7.pdf

"Additionally, some comparisons with Veritas Volume Manager (VxVM) are 
made merely for illustration."

-Mark Bole

Comments in-line.

Mark Bole wrote:

> Daniel_F@addamark.com wrote:
> 
>> In comp.databases.oracle.server DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> 
>> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>
>> Is ASM still raw volumes?  Isn't this why RMAN is the only option?
>>
> 
> Use OCFS if you want cooked filesystem for clusters. (Not available for 
> Solaris AFAIK).

I believe it is with 10g

>> The idea of DBA's doing OS related work (shrinking/expanding volumes 
>> etc..)
>> is about as scary as sysadmins doing database architecture.
>>
>> -Dan
> 
> Disagree. I've worked with some sysadmins who were mostly clueless about 
> Veritas VX/VM and VCS configurations they had inherited from external 
> consultants, so I had to figure out the hard parts myself.
> 
> Besides, Oracle is moving more and more of the OS under their wing, so 
> pretty soon sysadmins will be the folks who just swap out hard drives 
> and memory chips, and do password re-sets... ;-)  (Having supported Unix 
> longer than Oracle, I'm not saying I'm in favor of this!)

Actually my expectation is that SysAdmins will replace DBAs for most of
the current DBA position. It doesn't take a lot of Oracle knowledge to
type ./runInstaller.

It is DBAs that are in trouble if they don't learn new tricks: UDP, App
Servers, PHP, BI, etc.

> The OP asked about Solaris, which I have worked with under favorable 
> circumstances for many years, but it's interesting how most of the stuff 
> I see from Oracle nowadays regarding storage management is focused on 
> Linux:

Because Sun has for years had a lack of comprehension about the 
commoditization of hardware and operating systems. Now that they are
repricing that may change.


> "Additionally, some comparisons with Veritas Volume Manager (VxVM) are 
> made merely for illustration."
> 
> -Mark Bole

Still Veritas can not do what ASM does but ASM can do, AFAIK, everything
Veritas does. I'm not sure I see Veritas with any business in 5-10 years
just as I don't see BEA with much. I suspect Veritas might agree with me
as they are no longer Veritas: They are now Symantec.
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message 
news:41d62fd2$1_4@127.0.0.1...
> Comments in-line.
>

>
> Still Veritas can not do what ASM does but ASM can do, AFAIK, everything
> Veritas does. I'm not sure I see Veritas with any business in 5-10 years
> just as I don't see BEA with much. I suspect Veritas might agree with me
> as they are no longer Veritas: They are now Symantec.
> -- 

in the oracle world or entirely? 

In comp.unix.solaris Mark Bole <makbo@pacbell.net> wrote:
 
> Disagree. I've worked with some sysadmins who were mostly clueless about 
> Veritas VX/VM and VCS configurations they had inherited from external 
> consultants, so I had to figure out the hard parts myself.

Well, we have incompetence on both sides.  I have to concede that.  The OP
said his org doesn't even do RMAN.  So if they're very nascent in their
DBA skills they should lean more heavily on the SA's.

> The OP asked about Solaris, which I have worked with under favorable 
> circumstances for many years, but it's interesting how most of the stuff 
> I see from Oracle nowadays regarding storage management is focused on Linux:

I agree, they are trending towards Linux more and more.  It'll be interesting
to see if Solaris can make a dent with x86.   I'd still like to see Veritas
support linux more and am not 100% convinced that Veritas will "go away".

Databases are a huge part of the IT infrastructure but they aren't everything.

We use VCS and other Veritas solutions for a whole variety of services.  If
we went to 10g and did away with Oracle on VCS we'd probably lose 30% of
the clusters.

- Dan 

Dave wrote:

> "DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message 
> news:41d62fd2$1_4@127.0.0.1...
> 
>>Comments in-line.
>>
> 
> 
>>Still Veritas can not do what ASM does but ASM can do, AFAIK, everything
>>Veritas does. I'm not sure I see Veritas with any business in 5-10 years
>>just as I don't see BEA with much. I suspect Veritas might agree with me
>>as they are no longer Veritas: They are now Symantec.
>>-- 
> 
> 
> in the oracle world or entirely? 

In the context of comp.databaes.oracle.server.

But how many years before IBM matches the Oracle capability with both
DB2 and Informix? Two? Three?
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message 
news:41d6f4ce$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> Dave wrote:
>
>> "DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message 
>> news:41d62fd2$1_4@127.0.0.1...
>>
>>>Comments in-line.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Still Veritas can not do what ASM does but ASM can do, AFAIK, everything
>>>Veritas does. I'm not sure I see Veritas with any business in 5-10 years
>>>just as I don't see BEA with much. I suspect Veritas might agree with me
>>>as they are no longer Veritas: They are now Symantec.
>>>-- 
>>
>>
>> in the oracle world or entirely?
>
> In the context of comp.databaes.oracle.server.
>
> But how many years before IBM matches the Oracle capability with both
> DB2 and Informix? Two? Three?
> -- 
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damorgan@x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

good point - but I dont know what % of veritas sales is for databases 

Dave wrote:

> "DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message 
> news:41d6f4ce$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> 
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"DA Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message 
>>>news:41d62fd2$1_4@127.0.0.1...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Comments in-line.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Still Veritas can not do what ASM does but ASM can do, AFAIK, everything
>>>>Veritas does. I'm not sure I see Veritas with any business in 5-10 years
>>>>just as I don't see BEA with much. I suspect Veritas might agree with me
>>>>as they are no longer Veritas: They are now Symantec.
>>>>-- 
>>>
>>>
>>>in the oracle world or entirely?
>>
>>In the context of comp.databaes.oracle.server.
>>
>>But how many years before IBM matches the Oracle capability with both
>>DB2 and Informix? Two? Three?
>>-- 
>>Daniel A. Morgan
>>University of Washington
>>damorgan@x.washington.edu
>>(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
> 
> 
> good point - but I dont know what % of veritas sales is for databases 

Neither do I and I doubt they are advertising it. But I would imagine it 
is a very large percentage. An organization may have many database
servers but how many DNS or LDAP?
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

In comp.unix.solaris DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> If something goes wrong would you rather have two different
> software companies pointing fingers at each other or have
> the entire problem solved with a single iTAR?
> It isn't just about money.

Something goes wrong and you have 1 vendor?  Nope, you have two vendors.
1 vendor doing the dynamic multi-pathing & 1 vendor doing the volume
management (Oracle).

Right now I'm running Brocade, Emulex, EMC Clarrions & DMX's with Solaris/Sparc
as the OS/Hardware solution & Veritas for clustering and storage management.

Not much finger pointing going on there.

Seperating OS issues from database issues is very basic IMO.

On 2004-12-30, Joel Garry <joel-garry@home.com> wrote:
>
> Sybrand Bakker wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:51:30 GMT, JEDIDIAH <jedi@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.

-- 
	
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     

>       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.


Depends on the "you."  For a gross overgeneralization, what I've seen
in places that decide to do things themselves to save on recurring
support fees, everything goes fine for a year or three, then it all
goes to hell as the cumulative lack of preventive maintenance finally
tsunamis.  Like no one remembering to check when the batteries in the
UPS were installed.  Or employee turnover.  Or suddenly discovering
that O7 don't work no more.


>        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.

In general, I agree with this.  But I have seen specific instances of
it just getting f*&^&*(% by repetitive bounces or worse, hardware
corrupting data.  That's when there _should_ be finger pointing.  And I
think we might see more problems as Oracle attempts the impossible,
increasingly complicated systems on increasingly crappy hardware.  The
computer equivalent of those stupid "radio controlled" toys from China
that go backwards until you press the button and it goes forward in a
circle.

jg
-- 
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.pacifict.com/Story/

On 2004-12-31, DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.databases.oracle.server.]
>> On 2004-12-29, DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>>jeff_vosburg@aliases.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If price is not an issue, which is a better solution to
>>>>use?  Oracle 10g w/Automated Storage Manager or Veritas's
>>>>Enterprise Storage Foundation (with clustered filesystem).
>>>>
>>>>Big disadvantage I see to ASM is that we can only use
>>>>raw volumes & depend entirely on RMAN for backups/restores.
>>>>
>>>>This is for 3 Sun v440's that hope to run Oralce 10g RAC.
>>>>
>>>>-JV
>>>
>>>If something goes wrong would you rather have two different
>> 
>> 
>> 	If something goes wrong, then you've already lost.
>> 
>> 	The idea should be to avoid something going wrong to begin with.
>
> And when, in the real world, you achieve that no doubt you will
> receive international recognition. The rest of us keep opening
> TARs.
>
> Of all the laws ever made by man ... Murphy's is still the supreme rule.

	Odd then that you don't seem to apply this to Oracle Corp.

	A great many problems can be avoided or minimized by simply applying
skepticism in a fair and evenhanded manner.

-- 
	
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     

On 2005-01-03, Joel Garry <joel-garry@home.com> wrote:
>>       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.
>
>
> Depends on the "you."  For a gross overgeneralization, what I've seen
> in places that decide to do things themselves to save on recurring

     Well, nothing can really save you from an organization that insists on 
subjecting you to 7 year old hand-me-down DLT drives.

> support fees, everything goes fine for a year or three, then it all
> goes to hell as the cumulative lack of preventive maintenance finally
> tsunamis.  Like no one remembering to check when the batteries in the
> UPS were installed.  Or employee turnover.  Or suddenly discovering
> that O7 don't work no more.
[deletia]

-- 
	
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     

> Well, nothing can really save you from an organization
>that insists on subjecting you to 7 year old
>hand-me-down DLT drives.

LOL!  ya nailed it.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
I disagree with 7, take the summer off and travel.  Unless you can get
a job in a country with a month off from work each year.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CollegeAdvice.html

Amen to know u r fake.

DA Morgan wrote:
>> good point - but I dont know what % of veritas sales is for databases 
> 
> 
> Neither do I and I doubt they are advertising it. But I would imagine it 
> is a very large percentage. An organization may have many database
> servers but how many DNS or LDAP?

Um, I dont understand. What does this discussion have to do with DNS or 
LDAP?

Fredrik Lundholm wrote:

> I've seen ASM on solaris and it sux.

Could you elaborate on the "sux" part? What exactly did you find issues 
with?

Thanks

Vikas Agnihotri wrote:

> DA Morgan wrote:
> 
>>> good point - but I dont know what % of veritas sales is for databases 
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither do I and I doubt they are advertising it. But I would imagine 
>> it is a very large percentage. An organization may have many database
>> servers but how many DNS or LDAP?
> 
> 
> Um, I dont understand. What does this discussion have to do with DNS or 
> LDAP?

Veritas would be used on a server.
What are servers used for if not databases?
I metioned two other possible uses.
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Vikas Agnihotri wrote:

> Fredrik Lundholm wrote:
> 
>> I've seen ASM on solaris and it sux.
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on the "sux" part? What exactly did you find issues 
> with?
> 
> Thanks

And while elaborating please provide us with some sense of whether the
person that installed, configured, and produced the evaluation had any
formal training or was just flailing about and blaming Oracle for their
own lack of ability.
-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 2005-01-20, DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> Vikas Agnihotri wrote:
>
>> Fredrik Lundholm wrote:
>> 
>>> I've seen ASM on solaris and it sux.
>> 
>> 
>> Could you elaborate on the "sux" part? What exactly did you find issues 
>> with?
>> 
>> Thanks
>
> And while elaborating please provide us with some sense of whether the
> person that installed, configured, and produced the evaluation had any
> formal training or was just flailing about and blaming Oracle for their
> own lack of ability.

	...well, so much for 10g making the DBA obsolete.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     

On 2005-01-20, DA Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> Vikas Agnihotri wrote:
>
>> DA Morgan wrote:
>> 
>>>> good point - but I dont know what % of veritas sales is for databases 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Neither do I and I doubt they are advertising it. But I would imagine 
>>> it is a very large percentage. An organization may have many database
>>> servers but how many DNS or LDAP?
>> 
>> 
>> Um, I dont understand. What does this discussion have to do with DNS or 
>> LDAP?
>
> Veritas would be used on a server.
> What are servers used for if not databases?
> I metioned two other possible uses.

	You're a DBA and all you can think of is RDBMS, DNS and LDAP?

	Interesting.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \