Re: ACFS vs OCFS

From: <emi2fast_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <db5f6d63-7785-4596-950c-65d693d0c292_at_googlegroups.com>


Il giorno giovedý 10 gennaio 2013 16:21:48 UTC+1, Mladen Gogala ha scritto:
> 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

where did you see you cannot resize acfs? Received on Sat Jan 11 2014 - 20:58:00 CET

Original text of this message