AST1200 wrote:
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Few days ago I finish setting up Oracle 9i 2 node RAC on RHES 2.1,
> I use HP MSA1000, but isn't subject of this message.
>
> Before I started setting up RAC I did some resource regarding file
> systems for use Oracle with Linux. On oracle site I found some
> links showing comparison between ext2, ext3 and OCFS. Since ocfs isn't
> using kernel buffers performance is almost this same as raw partition
> and using ocfs it's possible format volume with block size up to 1MB
> (default and recommended by Oracle is 128kB).
> I have to setup one more server 9i without RAC and I'm wondering if
> I will get performance increase using OCFS (without RAC) instead ext3.
> I don't want use raw partition - big pain with backing up and limitation
> up to 255 raw partition / system in Linux environment.
>
> I don't have time to make real life testing and it's the reason why I'm
> posting this message.
> Do anybody have experience with 9i (no RAC) and OCFS combo ?
>
> Thank you,
> -AST
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
>
- We did *not* see a performance increase here when using ocfs
(We had a test with a single instance database that was on ext3 before,
then running on ocfs on the same SAN). But I would not consider this to
be a valid test.
- I would not want to use ocfs even if there was a little gain - the
need to use --o_direct with every copy command would be reason enough
for me to stick with a stable, general purpose file system.
hth
Steffen
--
... Steffen Roegner, Oracle dba
-------------------------------
http://www.sroegner.de, http://www.gagabut.de
Received on Sun Aug 22 2004 - 02:22:34 CDT
