Re: a quick poll regarding the 11gR2 OFA

  • From: "Rich Jesse" <rjoralist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:15:09 -0500 (CDT)

> A quick poll.
> The 11gR2 linux OFA version seems to push to use a directory such as
> â??/u01/â?¦â?? instead of â??/opt/oracle/â??
> Which directory are you currently using?

You asked for it!  :)

We currently use the "/unn" mount points, which unfortunately was already in
place before I came here.

Frankly, I don't care for the practice.  Perhaps it's from cutting my teeth
on VMS 4.3, but I prefer how VMS encourages admins to use "logicals" as a
layer of abstraction to give meaning and uniformity to generic disk/device
names and directory structures across many systems.

Enter Unix/Linux.  How many "/unn" shops have "/u03/oracle/arch/sid/"
directory structures under the "/u03" MP?  Likewise with
"/u02/oracle/data/sid/", "/u05/oracle/redo1/sid/" -- why even have the
"/unn" then?  It's unnecessary and confusing.  And the combination of those
two can be dangerous.  What is "/u01" on a non-Oracle box?  How much more
difficult is for a Jr/New DBA/SA to learn and know the directory structure
of each system?

I'm currently thinking through my own OFAesque structure.  I think OFA is
great, with just a few exceptions (most notably using ".log" for redo file
extensions, but I digress).  While I've been a fan in the past of installing
the software in /usr or /opt (depending on OS flavor), that seems to have
fallen out of style for some reason.  My current incarnation is something
like this:


The structure should be obvious, with each "/oraxxx" being it's own mount
point.  I specifically did not break out redos as I've not been able to
prove any performance reasons for doing so (i.e. using different options on
the mount point for our SAN), although I probably will for clarity, which is
always a good thing during emergencies like a recovery.

The other structure I'm considering is more traditional, with the
aforementioned /opt housing $ORACLE_HOME:


The only problem with this structure for me is that I often have to play
around in the FRA directory (much to my chagrin), so I'm leaning more
towards the former.

Also, I've not considered the DIAG area yet, as we're still on 10g.  I'll of
course incorporate that for our move to 11g.  It's a Work In Progress? after

My $.02,

> Are you going to change your directory structure to match this new OFA
> structure?


Other related posts: