Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I did a non-scientific benchmark against ASM and ZFS. Just look for my posts
and you'll see it. To summarize it was a statistical tie for simple loads of
around 2GB of data and we've chosen to stick with ASM for a variety of reasons
not the least of which is its ability to rebalance when disks are
added/removed. Better integration comes to mind too.
Yes. I think I commented on this last year, too. ASM is Oracle's solution
to replace all other file systems for their database. You can expect
that Oracle
will ensure that it's features are tightly coupled to the systems
management
interfaces available from Oracle. As such, there will always be better
integration between Oracle Database and ASM than any other generic file
system. In other words, Oracle gains a lot by developing ASM to be
consistent with their systems management infrastructure and running on
heterogeneous, legacy systems -- a good thing.
(I don't think ZFS is going to lose any revenue stream from ASM ;-)
-- richard
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
