> > Oracle on NetApp NFS works beautifully. It would really benefit the DBAs > at your organization to explore the possibility. >
Actually, after another meeting this morning - it now sounds like we may be leaning back this way. The main concern with NFS/dNFS was that there wasn't a good way to load balance between the NetApp filer heads using "bigfile" tablespaces; ASM can do this but you have to actually create zero-filled files on the NFS export (which takes forever), and the NetApp Oracle person they spoke with had indicated that not many customers were doing this, and some had had challenges with "finger-pointing" between the vendors. Without ASM, the DBAs would have had to either use "smallfile" tablespaces (which requires a lot more management on their side), or manually try to balance the load by placing different tables on different heads. Now, it looks like we've been able to take the load-balancing question off the table by committing to dedicate one filer head to this application database - we'll still have failover but the storage folks assure us that performance on just one head of the new hardware will be 1.5x times what they are getting now via FC on 2 heads. And since the new filer will be in cluster mode, they aren't limited to just 2 heads - if they need to expand down the road they can add more heads and still keep this one dedicated. Thanks to everyone who commented; I'm still going to do some additional research so I'll be better prepared if the question comes up again.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
