Re: New architecture using Clusterware

From: Marko Sutic <marko.sutic_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:02:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMD6WPcFSu1pRcsNO7A1YMdqrmq49-gDCNm7MeNfPJAcROv43A_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Stefano,
we are using Oracle Linux with OCFS2 1.4.

In earlier configuration we've used non-ASM system to store files. This is why we are not very familiar with troubleshooting possible ASM bugs or other various problems related to ASM.

OCFS2 was our choice because with OCFS2 you could use standard operating system commands to manage the datafiles. It is very easy to install and configure.

Biggest benefits of ASM are its flexibility and slightly better performance. But it is also less transparent and for us harder to manage and troubleshoot.

Don't get me wrong.
I know that ASM is recommended by Oracle and I know that ASM is solid, stable and well tuned.

But OCFS2 is good enough solution for us that servers it purpose. We're running highly active OLTP databases and DWH reporting systems without any problems for over a year.
With new storage system, servers and clustering solution our performance is significantly better in all areas.

I'm very pleased how everything is working so I'm not thinking about another options.

In next migration i think that our choice will be ZFS so we will pass ASM again.

Regards,
Marko

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Stefano Cislaghi <s.cislaghi_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Marko,
>
> I am interested. May I ask you why you avoided to use ASM as storage
> manager?
> Also, are you using Oracle Linux with fully supported OCFS or Redhat
> with the OCFS 1.4?
> Did you take a proof of concept of your solution before implementation?
>
> thanks
> Ste
>
> On 17 January 2013 13:32, Marko Sutic <marko.sutic_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Dennis,
> > we had similar situation as yours with medium-sized databases on Solaris
> > servers using VCS.
> >
> > For new environment we created active/passive failover clusters using
> > Oracle Clusterware on Linux with OCFS2 used for shared storage.
> > (knocking on wood) We are running clusters now over a year without any
> > problems.
> >
> > Just after initial installation we had some storage problems cause of bad
> > drivers and lousy FC cables/ports, but after we fixed that everything
> works
> > without any errors.
> > Local disks are used for binaries and database files are on OCFS2 mounts.
> > For managing resources we're using custom scripts.
> >
> > I've heard lots of bad stuff about OCFS2 but I think the most problems
> > happen if you use it to store large number of files.
> > It is not very flexible system as ASM and maybe it has slightly poorer
> > performance then ASM but for us it serves its purpose.
> >
> > All my doubts were pointed to OCFS2 and I've spent over a month
> performing
> > various stress/load/failover tests.
> > OCFS2 successfully survived all of them.
> >
> >
> > Are there better solutions then this, probably, but even on the most
> > expensive solutions you could expect bugs and problems.
> > Biggest benefit of this solution is cost-effectiveness.
> >
> > I hope everything will work fine in next years as it worked till now :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marko
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Dennis Williams <
> > oracledba.williams_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> List,
> >> Traditionally we've supported databases with Solaris servers using VCS.
> >> These are medium-sized databases with average availability requirements.
> >> Nothing leading-edge.
> >> We are considering a new cluster of servers. I'm wondering if Linux
> and
> >> Oracle Clusterware (but not RAC) is a cost-effective solution that would
> >> provide adequate availability. Has anyone on this list taken that
> approach?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Dennis Williams
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > *----*
> > *Marko Sutic*
> > My LinkedIn Profile <http://hr.linkedin.com/in/markosutic>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu
>
> The SQLServerAgent service depends on the MSSQLServer service, which
> has failed due to the following error: The operation completed
> successfully.
>

-- 
*----*
*Marko Sutic*
My LinkedIn Profile <http://hr.linkedin.com/in/markosutic>


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Fri Jan 18 2013 - 11:02:03 CET