Re: ACFS vs OCFS
From: Jan <jan.benjamins_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1e2d6561-88ff-486f-a387-755ef9d05896_at_googlegroups.com>
On Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:21:48 UTC+1, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:43:04 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've been reading about both file systems. The problem with ACFS is that
>
> > it isn't open source file system so I cannot say for sure, but it
>
> > appears that ACFS is very similar to OCFS, only it uses the services of
>
> > the underlying volume manager (ASM) instead of OCFS which starts its own
>
> > lock manager. Extents and directory structure looks remarkably similar
>
> > to me, based on what little I was able to find on the Metalink. Does
>
> > anybody have any other information?
>
>
>
> Well, I haven't been reading enough. It is not possible to keep database
>
> files on ACFS. Also, it's a different beast from OCFS. The idea was to
>
> maintain a backup, that I can switch to using RMAN and backup that backup
>
> to tape for safekeeping. The database is two node RAC on 64 bit Red Hat
>
> Linux 6.3 with the data files in ASM diskgroups. I was hoping to get by
>
> without installing OCFS2 because OCFS, in contrast with ACFS cannot be
>
> resized. If the database grows, system admin would have to add new space
>
> to the logical volume and reformat it using mkfs. ACFS can be re-sized
>
> and it doesn't require a new installation.
>
> However, Oracle responded: it is not possible to keep database files on
>
> ACFS. Bummer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mladen Gogala
>
> The Oracle Whisperer
>
> http://mgogala.byethost5.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1e2d6561-88ff-486f-a387-755ef9d05896_at_googlegroups.com>
On Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:21:48 UTC+1, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:43:04 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've been reading about both file systems. The problem with ACFS is that
>
> > it isn't open source file system so I cannot say for sure, but it
>
> > appears that ACFS is very similar to OCFS, only it uses the services of
>
> > the underlying volume manager (ASM) instead of OCFS which starts its own
>
> > lock manager. Extents and directory structure looks remarkably similar
>
> > to me, based on what little I was able to find on the Metalink. Does
>
> > anybody have any other information?
>
>
>
> Well, I haven't been reading enough. It is not possible to keep database
>
> files on ACFS. Also, it's a different beast from OCFS. The idea was to
>
> maintain a backup, that I can switch to using RMAN and backup that backup
>
> to tape for safekeeping. The database is two node RAC on 64 bit Red Hat
>
> Linux 6.3 with the data files in ASM diskgroups. I was hoping to get by
>
> without installing OCFS2 because OCFS, in contrast with ACFS cannot be
>
> resized. If the database grows, system admin would have to add new space
>
> to the logical volume and reformat it using mkfs. ACFS can be re-sized
>
> and it doesn't require a new installation.
>
> However, Oracle responded: it is not possible to keep database files on
>
> ACFS. Bummer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mladen Gogala
>
> The Oracle Whisperer
>
> http://mgogala.byethost5.com
You can resize ocfs2, google for it Received on Thu Jan 10 2013 - 20:36:53 CET