RE: OCFS2
- From: "Murching, Bob" <bob_murching@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'VerreyB@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <VerreyB@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Oracle Discussion List'" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 07:13:51 -0400
I have no concerns with OCFS however OCFS2 being promoted as a general
purpose filesystem does make me nervous. This is because there are so many
more variables involved when positioning a filesystem for such broad use.
We've been using OCFS 1.1 and it's very stable and was a breeze to setup.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Billy Verreynne (JW) [mailto:VerreyB@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Mon Aug 08 01:49:06 2005
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
