Re: 9i RAC : OCFS vs Raw Devices

From: Sten Rognes <scrognes_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 1 Oct 2003 10:07:28 -0700
Message-ID: <f4d81df5.0310010907.1014f8f1@posting.google.com>

I don't know what your uptime requirement and your performance goal is, but I'll throw in a few more comments on OCFS that I think you should consider if you haven't already.

In addition to not supporting shared OH installation, (lack of binaries and generic file support on OCFS) there are other areas were OCFS are lacking such as volume management, dynamic resizing of partitions, defragmentation of filsystem, online fsck.

I very much recommend spending some time researching Metalink. You'll find a lot of information on other customers' performance problems using OCFS as well as some pointers to cases where use of OS tools can cause slow throughput/kernel issues.

If you chose to go with OCFS make sure you

- you use kernel 2.4.9-e.25 or higher.
- use RMAN for backups
- spread files across many volumes as having one/few volumes are know

to cause IO bottlenecks with OCFS

Sten

"Majd" <autres_at_free.fr> wrote in message news:<3f7a9285$0$28883$626a54ce_at_news.free.fr>...
> thanks for the reply :)
>
> I'm not going to be able to wait for v2.0. ... anyway, i've got only 2
> nodes on my cluster. deploying/managing software on both going smoothly.
> Sure that more than 2 nodes would be time consuming.
> My problem being the number of raw devices to create ... a real nightmare.
> ocfs v1.0.9 seems to fit my needs. but i'm not sure if it is prodution
> stable ...
>
> Majd
>
Received on Wed Oct 01 2003 - 12:07:28 CDT