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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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 >> >> >> -- >> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l >> >> >> > > > -- > *----* > *Marko Sutic* > My LinkedIn Profile <http://hr.linkedin.com/in/markosutic> > > > -- > //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. -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l