I have actually had very good experiences with OCFS2. I normally only put the data files there, not the binaries, but I havent had any real problems with it at all. I find it more flexible than ASM On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Jeremy Schneider < 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 > -- > //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > -- Andrew W. Kerber 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'