Re: Prod 18c on ACFS

There has always been the option of using ASM disk groups directly, but you are correct that the option of choosing between ASM and ACFS wasn't part of the templates until 12.1.0.2.

However, I still think that the ODA group would be a good resource to provide you with performance and scalability numbers. Tammy Bednar is probably a good place to start.

Seth

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:36 AM Ricard Martinez <ricard.martinez_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, as far I been reading on the 12.1/12.2 ODA config docs seems they
> give you the option to create DB on ASM or ACFS now, instead of ACFS as in
> 11. That makes me wonder if it is because users demanded it or other
> reasons. Anyone with ODA can verify?
>
> On 19 Nov 2018 16:01, "Seth Miller" <sethmiller.sm_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ricard,
>
> It might be worth getting in touch with the ODA team since the ODA uses
> ACFS by default. I'm sure they must have done some testing in the area
> already.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:13 AM Ricard Martinez <ricard.martinez_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi list,
>>
>> In our 12.1c RAC clusters we define 3 Diskgroups (data/fra/redo) on ASM
>> that have up to 100 DB on them (noncdb). This been working fine for us, but
>> with 18c we thought about using ACFS in order to be able to use snapshots,
>> etc. If we keep the same DG structure we will end with 3 mountpoints for
>> each DB, meaning we will have over 300 mountpoints on the nodes. Not a good
>> call on my experience as cluster takes ages to stop/start that many acfs.
>> We can use 1 for data for each DB and a global one for fra/redo, but not
>> sure if acfs will be happy with 100 dB writing to only one volume. Of
>> course there is also the I/O impact on going to ACFS, meaning we will lose
>> around 3% based in our tests. Is anyway running a similar environment using
>> ACFS? Even if not, but you have some insight will be appreciated.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l