NFS vs ASM as storage - which is better. considerations.
some months ago i planned to deploy two RAC installations only for test purposes - just to play with them. i assumed that both of them will be different with theirs architecture.
first one:
--------------
OEL5.5
11.2.0.3
2 nodes
externall storage based on ISCSI + ASM and ASMlib
separate oracle homes on both nodes
second one:
--------------
OEL4.5
10.2.0.1
2 nodes
nfs from third server as external storage
common oracle home stored on shared storage
and to tell you the true i supposed that the second installation will be much more difficult to deploy that first one. but i was wrong.
NFS as shared storage is much more easy to deploy and maintanance - and this is my assumptions after physical deployment of this two RAC's.
lets not talk about redudundancy and performance between this two installations, but lets take under consideration its easy deployment and easy maintanance.
in my opinion using NFS as shared storage is much more easy and not as effort demainding than deploying RAC on ASM. it doesn't require ASM installation, files are stored on separate NFS share where we can see them from the operating system level and even installation is much more simpler.
what do you think about that?
how many RAC installation is deployed using ASM+ISCSI/FC comparing to NFS as external storage.
is it allowable considering RAC installation with NFS as external storage as something less profesional than storing datafiles on ASM in DiskGroups?
what do you think about cons and pros comparing this thwo architectures?