Passing onto the list (thanks Jill) -----Forwarded Message----- > From: Tony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Rowling, Jill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [SLUG] Oracle over NFS > Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:45:43 +1000 > > On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 11:41, Rowling, Jill wrote: > > The only problem I can think of is NFS timeouts clashing with any Oracle > > timeouts. > > If the database is not in use for some time, and NFS does its timeout thing > > (typ 30 seconds), I would read up to see if Oracle has a shorter timeout > > before it complains that the database is unavailable. > > > > Thats the 'gotcha' that I'd thought of. > > > Also one of the NASs that I looked at had this terrible NFS setup where it > > exported everything if you wanted NFS at all. Very "trusting" and not secure > > (a Win2k box with lots of Win2k things missing from it). > > > > A Linux / BSD / Solaris NAS would be better than the "off-the-shelf" NASs > > that run Windows. > > Yeah, I'm looking at doing a NAS with just a big box and a bunch of RAID > disks rather than a black box one. > > > Why don't you just plug in an extra controller and add a disk array? You > > would get better performance. > > NFS is better suited to individual applications to share data or home > > directories amongst servers. > > The shared aspect is the key. 2 boxes both able to access the data > (oracle and application failover), otherwise I'd disk array it. > > Thanks for the insights :-) > > TG -- Tony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
