RE: Cluster File System Versus ASM for RAC Deployment in Production?... Pros & Cons
- From: "Matthew Zito" <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Dan Norris" <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <VIVEK_SHARMA@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:50:47 -0500
I'm sorry, I was unclear in my response - problem with responding to Oracle-L
pre-coffee. Tunefs.ocfs2 is fine for growing a filesystem, but it has to be
unmounted when you do that, and your storage array has to support extending
devices. Many of the storage arrays today either don't support growing LUNs,
or support it in a shabby way, and a lot of organizations don't like taking
downtime to add disk space, both of which make OCFS2 less suitable for
datafiles, etc., where there is likely to be growth over time.
The real piece that OCFS needs is a proper volume manager, so that the
filesystem itself could be striped across multiple devices, and managed online.
If you're using ASM, there's no need to deal with taking anything offline to
add more space, just add another disk. There's some stupidity in the 10gR2 ASM
rebalancing code, but it is a lot better in 11g.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew Zito
Chief Scientist
GridApp Systems
P: 646-452-4090
mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gridapp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Norris [mailto:dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thu 12/6/2007 9:34 AM
To: Matthew Zito; VIVEK_SHARMA@xxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Cluster File System Versus ASM for RAC Deployment in
Production?... Pros & Cons
>> However, OCFS2 has no capability
for growing filesystems, creating situations where using OCFS2 for
datafiles means increasing the number of mounts over time, which gets
messy.
That's incorrect. "tunefs.ocfs2 -S /dev/sde1" will grow the FS to the size of
the partition where it resides. Just tested it this week:
[root@ch-srlxdb01 ~]#
tunefs.ocfs2 -S /dev/sde1
tunefs.ocfs2 1.2.7
Changing volume size from
1309649 blocks to 1834541 blocks
Proceed (y/N): y
Resized volume
Wrote Superblock
Other related posts:
