Re: RAC/CRS and OCFS2

On Mar 15, 11:45 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> Keith wrote:
> > Hello RAC gurus,
>
> > I am currently running 10.2.0.3 RAC/CRS on RHEL4. All our database
> > files are using ASM/raw devices. However, we now have the need for a
> > clustered file system. This file system likely would not be used
> > directly by the database, but requires high availability. So, we'd
> > like to use OCFS2 -- which has prompted some questions:
>
> I'm confused by your question ... OCFS is a file system. What does a
> file system not being used by the database have to do with highly
> available anything?
>
> Are you expecting your file system to load balance? To have failover?
> I'm at a bit of a loss here to understand your intention.
>
> About the only thing I can say is that I share hpuxrac's concern
> about your lack of testing and a file system not be used for Oracle
> has nothing to do with the CRS.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damor..._at_x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org

By highly-available, I'm referring to making a file system available R/ W from two or more nodes. Should a node fail, the file system would still be available from a second (or more) node. I am not expecting to load balance; simply minimize (or avoid) down time of the file system.

My concern with CRS and OCFS2 is that both provide clustering services and I'm not sure what the expected behavior is under certain clustering situations. For example, if the clustering services of OCFS2 have a split-brain-type situation, is it going to reboot the system? Since I'm not supporting my DB over OCFS, I'm not sure I would want such behavior.

I have 1-1/2 weeks before my migration, which isn't much time; but I would definitely perform as much testing as I can. I'm just trying to make a determination if this is feasible and practical; or if there's simply a better way to do it, before attempting anything. Received on Thu Mar 15 2007 - 11:43:30 CDT