Re: Oracle 9i/Solaris 8/NFS & >4GB datafiles

From: DerUbergeek <DerUbergeek_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 06:40:10 -0700
Message-ID: <3C1369BA.4070506@hotmail.com>

Okay, thanks for the input. It still doesn't really explain why it magically appears at the 4GB boundary, but the overwhelming consensus seems to be: avoid NFS.

IRT advertising: Seems rather non-sequiter, but I'll keep that in mind if for some bizarre reason I ever get the inkling (which I never have) to advertise some sort of product here.

-d

Mladen Gogala wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 22:15:51 -0500, DerUbergeek wrote:
>
>
>
>

>>Nuno Souto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm confused right here.  What is the relevance of NFS for this?  Are
>>>you using NFS file systems (in the 32-bit 10K) in the 64-bit E250 to
>>>store your >4Gb data files?  If so, are you surprised it doesn't work?
>>>
>>The relevance is to describe the system. And yes, I would be surprised if
>>largefiles weren't supported in the 32bit kernel version of the same O/S.
>>Largefiles were supported prior to Solaris going fully 64 bit. And,
>>according to my tests via mkfile, they're also supported in my specific
>>configuration.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nope, but IIRC ORACLE recommends strongly against creating its datafiles
>>>using NFS volumes.  If nothing else, at least the NFS server should be
>>>64-bit OS, no?
>>>
>>
>>Again, why? And yes, I'm fully aware of what 2^32-1 is. The bitsize
>>support of the native O/S should have no impact on the size of files
>>

>
> The problem is not in the bits and sizes, the problem is that NFS does
> not guarantee that the write will happen when the "write" system service
> is issued. NFS3 (the one used on Solaris) is issuing "lazy writes", "async
> writes", "piggyback writes" and all kinds of nasty stuff which result in
> temporary datafile inconsistencies.The solution is to attach the disks
> that you now share through NFS to a FC/AL adapter on both systems, connect
> the systems by a gigabit switch and run the database on raw devices (which
> are supported in this type of configuration). I also believe that you
> should get a thingy called PDB from SUN.Ask Oracle about RAC. If they
> don't know what the heck are you talking about, tell them that it's OPS on
> steroids.
> As for the DB2, tis is an Oracle group and advertising another product is
> not why I read this group. Please don't do that. Thanks.
>
Received on Sun Dec 09 2001 - 07:40:10 CST