[Ocfs-users] OCFS Database too slow

Wed Jul 21 10:15:27 CDT 2004

Hi David...

Let me try as per your suggestion. Thanks a lot for your inputs.

Rgds/Jeram

-----Original Message-----
From: David McWhinnie [mailto:davidmcwhinnie at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:03 AM
To: Jeram; Wim Coekaerts
Cc: ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
Subject: RE: [Ocfs-users] OCFS Database too slow

Until we can get a fix for SecurePath we are not using
anything for path failover.  Our only real point of
failure is the switch, and we felt that the risk was
acceptable.  For an HBA or cable failure the RAC
architecture allows things to continue running on the
other nodes.

--- Jeram <jeram at JISEDU.OR.ID> wrote:
> Hi david,
> 
> What software or tools are you using to represent
> the SECUREPATH? 
> 
> Rgds/Jeram
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David McWhinnie
> [mailto:davidmcwhinnie at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:33 AM
> To: Wim Coekaerts; Jeram
> Cc: ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS Database too slow
> 
> 
> After doing some extensive testing with and without
> secure path I would recommend testing without it. 
> We
> are seeing some issues with SecurePath enabled in
> our
> environment, but HP is not able to duplicate it in
> their labs.
> 
> 
> David.
> 
> --- Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts at oracle.com> wrote:
> > i thik the luns can become a bottleneck for one.
> > i'd also try to not use securepath for 1 time and
> > see how that changes
> > performance and then go back if it's the same etc
> > 
> > people should run vmstat for a while without
> > anything running , just
> > have the filesystems monted and see waht the
> amount
> > of iowait on the box
> > is 
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:12:43AM +0700, Jeram
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Wim...
> > > 
> > > This discussion is quite interesting, I am
> having
> > some performance issue,
> > > but till now still under observation, This is my
> > environment details :
> > > 1. We are using RHAS 2.1 with kernel 2.4.9-e.27
> > Enterprise
> > > 2. OCFS version : 2.4.9-e-enterprise-1.0.9-6
> > > 3. Oracle RDBMS : 9.2.0.4 RAC with 5 Nodes
> > > 4. Storage = EVA 6000 with 8 TB SIZE
> > > 5. We have 1 DiskGroup and 51 LUNs configured in
> > EVA6000.
> > > 
> > > You are talking about securepath, we are using
> > securepath right now, is
> > > there any consideration or suggestion if we are
> > using securepath ? I have
> > > tried to upgrade to OCFS 1.0.12, but i dont see
> > any performance improvement.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Jeram
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wim Coekaerts
> > [mailto:wim.coekaerts at oracle.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:42 AM
> > > To: Varghese Abraham
> > > Cc: ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS Database too slow
> > > 
> > > 
> > > are you using securepath ?
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:29:47AM -0700,
> Varghese
> > Abraham wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Wim,
> > > >  I appreciate your reply and I have been
> > following this mailing list very
> > > closely for the last 3-4 months.
> > > > 
> > > > I am not at all trying to compare between ext3
> > and ocfs.
> > > > 
> > > > The current installation that we are having is
> > dead slow..
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > We had a previous rac installation (TEST1 )
> with
> > OCFS ( kernel e27 , ocfs
> > > 1.0.9 , 9.2.0.3 database).
> > > > On this old system with OCFS, our performance
> > was beautiful.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I am not able to get even a foot close to the
> > previous systems  ( TEST 1)
> > > performance.
> > > > 
> > > > Neither am I blaming OCFS.
> > > >  After having seen good performance with TEST1
> > system, I am unable to make
> > > out what has gone wrong with the new system
> > although we are on the latest
> > > for everything with the new system.
> > > > 
> > > > I am sure it is some small issue and that is
> > what I need your help in
> > > trying to debug.
> > > > 
> > > > R'gds
> > > > Varghese Abraham.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: wim.coekaerts at oracle.com
> > [mailto:wim.coekaerts at oracle.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 10:13 AM
> > > > To: Varghese Abraham
> > > > Cc: ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS Database too
> slow
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > yes you are probably comparing local
> filesystem
> > versus raw or cfs which
> > > > is not cached in the OS only in oracle.
> > > > 
> > > > this is a story that comes back on this list
> > every few weeks or months
> > > > and basically happens because there is a huge
> > misunderstanding on what
> > > > the OS filesystem cache provides single node
> etc
> > etc, it takes time to
> > > > explain and I think wehave in the past. could
> > you go through the
> > > > archives and look for earlier discussions on
> > this ? 
> > > > 
> > > > there is nothing slow, what youa re doing is
> > having a database run that
> > > > has a lot of stuff cached in the OS itself on
> > local fielsystem and then
> > > > when you do that query on cfs or raw it has to
> > go to disk, the rigth
> > > > thing to do (should do) is give all that
> memory
> > to oracle. then you will
> > > > see the difference
> > > > 
> > > > again, it's not abug, don't think it's slow,
> > just do the right thing.
> > > > and look in archives for a pointer to the
> > discussions
> > > > 
> > > > Wim
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:39:33AM -0700,
> > Varghese Abraham wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >  we are using Red Hat 2.1 Kernel e38 along
> > with MSA 1000.
> > > > > ocfs version being used is
> > > > > 
> > > > > $ rpm -qa | grep ocfs
> > > > > ocfs-tools-1.0.10-1
> > > > > ocfs-2.4.9-e-enterprise-1.0.12-1
> > > > > ocfs-support-1.0.10-1
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Database Version is 9.2.0.5
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > However we find that the performance of the
> > database on OCFS is too
> > > slow. even a select count(1) from all_tables
> takes
> > like a while to complete.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We initially assumed RAC is the problem
> area. 
> > ( Because with both nodes
> > > enabled we had terrible performance)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hence we stopped one of the RAC Databases to
> > test out the performance.
> > > > > However even with one node the performance
> is
> > real bad.
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 