From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Mon Aug 8 06:15:52 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j78BFq3R003670 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 06:15:52 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j78BFnIP003655 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 06:15:49 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id C5A4752EAD; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 06:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29407-09; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 06:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 4D9E51D9C35; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 06:15:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Murching, Bob" To: "'VerreyB@telkom.co.za'" , "'Oracle Discussion List'" Subject: RE: OCFS2 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 07:13:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-archive-position: 23527 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: bob_murching@BUDCO.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: bob_murching@BUDCO.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-mailscan-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-mailscan-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 I have no concerns with OCFS however OCFS2 being promoted as a general purpose filesystem does make me nervous. This is because there are so many more variables involved when positioning a filesystem for such broad use. We've been using OCFS 1.1 and it's very stable and was a breeze to setup. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Billy Verreynne (JW) [mailto:VerreyB@telkom.co.za] Sent: Mon Aug 08 01:49:06 2005 To: Oracle Discussion List Subject: RE: OCFS2 I don't get this.. I installed OCFS 1.1 a while back. It simply worked. And is still working. And is so darn useful I have envious Unix HP-UX & Solaris sysadmin colleagues desperate for something similar to use. I used ASMlib with Powerpath and ran into all kinds of weird intermittant I/O problems.. which the TAR finally suggesting were "problems" (I call it plain bugs) in EMC's Powerpath. I lost about 4 weeks of production & development time as a result. Which I could not afford to loose. And now some of you complain about OCFS and make all kinds of dispariging comments on the subject? If you have a gripe, please get technical because I fail to find any value in a posting that just bitches about a product. -- Billy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This e-mail and its contents are subject to the Telkom SA Limited e-mail legal notice available at http://www.telkom.co.za/TelkomEMailLegalNotice.PDF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l