Re: ACFS vs OCFS
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:21:48 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <pan.2013.01.10.15.21.34_at_gmail.com>
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.comReceived on Thu Jan 10 2013 - 16:21:48 CET