From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Mon Aug 8 10:16:34 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j78FGY8w014042 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:16:34 -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 j78FGOIP014022 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:16:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 39DCC1DD15C; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:15:58 -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 25888-02; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 7CE911DCC44; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:15:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: "Murching, Bob" To: "'cmarquez@collegeboard.org'" , "'Oracle Discussion List'" Subject: RE: OCFS2 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:13:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C59C2B.CD07B1CC" X-archive-position: 23551 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=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,CASHCASHCASH, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C59C2B.CD07B1CC Content-Type: text/plain While we're on the subject of OCFS, how many of you logically mirror the voting disk and OCR if you're fully redundant on the storage side? Same arguments (pro and con) you'd use for online redo log members, or are there additional considerations specific to the voting disk and/or OCR? _____ From: Marquez, Chris [mailto:cmarquez@collegeboard.org] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 11:01 AM To: Oracle Discussion List Subject: 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.telkom.co.za/TelkomEMailLegalNotice.PDF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l ------_=_NextPart_001_01C59C2B.CD07B1CC Content-Type: text/html RE: OCFS2
While we're on the subject of OCFS, how many of you logically mirror the voting disk and OCR if you're fully redundant on the storage side?  Same arguments (pro and con) you'd use for online redo log members, or are there additional considerations specific to the voting disk and/or OCR?

From: Marquez, Chris [mailto:cmarquez@collegeboard.org]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 11:01 AM
To: Oracle Discussion List
Subject: 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.telkom.co.za/TelkomEMailLegalNotice.PDF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l



------_=_NextPart_001_01C59C2B.CD07B1CC-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l