RE: future of ocfs2

One minor inconvenience I find with both OCFS2 and ASM is that every time a 
kernel update is performed - you need to go the extra step of updating both 
oracleasm and ocfs2 packages.

Julio

From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of LS Cheng
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:28 AM
To: jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ocfs2-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: future of ocfs2

Hi

I think OCFS2 is not bad, from technical point of view I dont think its 
performance is worse than ASM, from manageability and user view is more 
friendly. Of course ASM has its unique features but I have customer who doesnt 
like it because it looks like a black box to them, just need more time to get 
used to it.

But that is probably one of the reasons Oracle is going to make ASM a Cluster 
File System. Another reason is UTL_FILE, many places use UTL_FILE and of course 
ASM cannot be used. I have customers who need to use OCFS2 just for that reason 
(or NAS).

With OCFS2 I have found strange eviction problemas, having OCFS2 and 
Clusterware running is like having two Cluster Managers in same system so 
sometimes it is hard to diagnostic server reboot problems. But with latest 
version it seems mature and stable enough.

Sharing binaries I dont think it is a very good idea.

So should you use OCFS2 as standard? I think you should consider it, I mean 
migrate it to ASMFS when it comes there should be any major problems.

Thanks

--
LSC



On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Jeremy Schneider 
<jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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

Other related posts: