From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Mon Aug 8 10:03:37 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j78F3bQP012134 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:03:37 -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 j78F3PIP012095 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:03:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id D99981DD4E0; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:03:19 -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 20506-05; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:03:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 42F4D1DD507; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:03:19 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C59C2A.0C292CB3" Subject: RE: OCFS2 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:01:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: OCFS2 Thread-Index: AcWZ585HjExutMagThqJZvTjOa2HAAAADGtgADC2WJAAS/I9tQAS8tHV From: "Marquez, Chris" To: "Oracle Discussion List" X-archive-position: 23548 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: cmarquez@collegeboard.org Precedence: normal Reply-To: cmarquez@collegeboard.org 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=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,CASHCASHCASH, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=2.63 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C59C2A.0C292CB3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>some of you complain about OCFS >>and make all kinds of dispariging comments=20 >>please get technical because I fail to find=20 >>any value in a posting that just bitches OCFS is slow(er), that is a fact...and slower than RAW when promoted as = begin equal to RAW!? When going to a new server with more disk (7 spindles vs. 4) and more = powerful CPU, more RAM we find; - Very, very server waits is for disk IO...even when db activity is = moderate. - Most of, or often the oracle waits is for disk IO...when activity is = higher. - RMAN backup is 3 x's longer or more (than a server with only 3 = datafile EXT3 disks). - RMAN restore is 4 x's longer (than a server with only 3 datafile EXT3 = disks). - Can not (and is not recommended by Oracle) to archive to = OCFS...massive oracle waits when we did. (This is a real impact because it means that RMAN scripts can *NOT* see = all arch logs as local/shared and *must* get logs from there respective = local arch dest...this is a huge risk on node failure and recovery is = needed.) All of the things I reference above I have not seen once but many, many = times over and over again. I have personally spent months trying to better or system (disk config) = for OCFS use...and we have made improvements, but reality is that our db = ran much faster "WITH LESS HARDWARE" when we used EXT3. We had RAID5, then went to RAID1, move arch logs to local EXT fs, = re-laid out every datafile on each disk based on optimal application = data access. The reality is that this db will run immediately faster if we got off = OCFS. Again, I know the reality is "you get what you pay for"...and for OCFS = we have paid nothing in $$$, but plenty in time! This is not a bash of OCFS, but the reality...my reality...I see it and = live with it every day. OCFS works and has strong management benefits over RAW, but don't kind = yourself about it equality to other filesystems. Chris Marquez Oracle DBA -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org on behalf of Billy Verreynne (JW) Sent: Mon 8/8/2005 1:44 AM To: Oracle Discussion List Subject: RE: OCFS2 =20 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 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C59C2A.0C292CB3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: OCFS2

>>some of you complain about OCFS
>>and make all kinds of dispariging comments
>>please get technical because I fail to find
>>any value in a posting that just bitches

OCFS is slow(er), that is a fact...and slower than RAW when promoted as = begin equal to RAW!?

When going to a new server with more disk (7 spindles vs. 4) and more = powerful CPU, more RAM we find;
 - Very, very server waits is for disk IO...even when db activity = is moderate.
 - Most of, or often the oracle waits is for disk IO...when = activity is higher.

 - RMAN backup is 3 x's longer or more (than a server with only 3 = datafile EXT3 disks).
 - RMAN restore is 4 x's longer (than a server with only 3 datafile = EXT3 disks).

 - Can not (and is not recommended by Oracle) to archive to = OCFS...massive oracle waits when we did.
(This is a real impact because it means that RMAN scripts can *NOT* see = all arch logs as local/shared and *must* get logs from there respective = local arch dest...this is a huge risk on node failure and recovery is = needed.)

All of the things I reference above I have not seen once but many, many = times over and over again.

I have personally spent months trying to better or system (disk config) = for OCFS use...and we have made improvements, but reality is that our db = ran much faster "WITH LESS HARDWARE" when we used EXT3.

We had RAID5, then went to RAID1, move arch logs to local EXT fs, = re-laid out every datafile on each disk based on optimal application = data access.

The reality is that this db will run immediately faster if we got off = OCFS.

Again, I know the reality is "you get what you pay for"...and = for OCFS we have paid nothing in $$$, but plenty in time!

This is not a bash of OCFS, but the reality...my reality...I see it and = live with it every day.
OCFS works and has strong management benefits over RAW, but don't kind = yourself about it equality to other filesystems.

Chris Marquez
Oracle DBA




-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org on behalf of Billy Verreynne = (JW)
Sent: Mon 8/8/2005 1:44 AM
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.te= lkom.co.za/TelkomEMailLegalNotice.PDF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
http://www.freelists.o= rg/webpage/oracle-l

------_=_NextPart_001_01C59C2A.0C292CB3-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l