RE: future of ocfs2
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:37:16 -0500
One minor inconvenience I find with both OCFS2 and ASM is that every time a kernel update is performed - you need to go the extra step of updating both oracleasm and ocfs2 packages.
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of LS Cheng
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:28 AM
Cc: ocfs2-users_at_oss.oracle.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: Re: future of ocfs2
I think OCFS2 is not bad, from technical point of view I dont think its performance is worse than ASM, from manageability and user view is more friendly. Of course ASM has its unique features but I have customer who doesnt like it because it looks like a black box to them, just need more time to get used to it.
But that is probably one of the reasons Oracle is going to make ASM a Cluster File System. Another reason is UTL_FILE, many places use UTL_FILE and of course ASM cannot be used. I have customers who need to use OCFS2 just for that reason (or NAS).
With OCFS2 I have found strange eviction problemas, having OCFS2 and Clusterware running is like having two Cluster Managers in same system so sometimes it is hard to diagnostic server reboot problems. But with latest version it seems mature and stable enough.
Sharing binaries I dont think it is a very good idea.
So should you use OCFS2 as standard? I think you should consider it, I mean migrate it to ASMFS when it comes there should be any major problems.
LSC On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Jeremy Schneider <jeremy.schneider_at_ardentperf.com<mailto:jeremy.schneider_at_ardentperf.com>> wrote: At the company where I'm working right now, I'm part of an architecture effort to come up with our standard design for RAC on Linux across the firm. There will be dozens or possibly hundreds of deployments globally using the design we settle on.
We're internally debating whether or not we should include OCFS2 in this design right now, and I'm curious if anyone has arguments one way or the other to share. Our standard design on Solaris does utilize a cluster filesystem and we would welcome a similar design, but there are some concerns about the readiness, stability and future of OCFS2.
OCFS2 is being considered for these four use cases:
- database binaries (vs local files or NFS) - diag top (11g) or admin tree (10g) (vs local files or NFS) - archived logs - backups
Other files will be stored in ASM.
I have seen mention in blogs such as http://bigdaveroberts.wordpress.com/ of something called ASMFS in 11gR2 and I'm wondering - will this feature (if included) have any impact on Oracle's commitment to OCFS2 development? Could Oracle conceivably develop a whole new cluster filesystem and put their full weight behind it as they did for ASM storage, leaving OCFS2 as a lower priority for new features and improvements? Has Oracle demonstrated significant commitment to OCFS2 development and support in the past, and is this a mature enough technology for wide-scale deployment?
Just looking for opinions. :)
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Fri Feb 06 2009 - 10:37:16 CST