At the company where I'm working right now, I'm part of an architecture effort to come up with our standard design for RAC on Linux across the firm. There will be dozens or possibly hundreds of deployments globally using the design we settle on.
We're internally debating whether or not we should include OCFS2 in this design right now, and I'm curious if anyone has arguments one way or the other to share. Our standard design on Solaris does utilize a cluster filesystem and we would welcome a similar design, but there are some concerns about the readiness, stability and future of OCFS2.
OCFS2 is being considered for these four use cases: - database binaries (vs local files or NFS) - diag top (11g) or admin tree (10g) (vs local files or NFS) - archived logs - backups Other files will be stored in ASM.I have seen mention in blogs such as http://bigdaveroberts.wordpress.com/ of something called ASMFS in 11gR2 and I'm wondering - will this feature (if included) have any impact on Oracle's commitment to OCFS2 development? Could Oracle conceivably develop a whole new cluster filesystem and put their full weight behind it as they did for ASM storage, leaving OCFS2 as a lower priority for new features and improvements? Has Oracle demonstrated significant commitment to OCFS2 development and support in the past, and is this a mature enough technology for wide-scale deployment?
Just looking for opinions. :) Thanks, Jeremy -- Jeremy Schneider Chicago, IL http://www.ardentperf.com -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l