Re: future of ocfs2
- From: LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:27:50 +0100
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> 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
>
>
>
Other related posts:
