[Ocfs-users] OCFS Questions

[Wim Coekaerts]

I just don't see a problem so m  not suer if anyone is facing any
issues, including yourself ;-)

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 07:53:39AM +0700, Jeram wrote:
> Hi Wim...
> 
> The Database is running well without any problems, even if we query a table
> with 20 Million records there is no performance issues....
> 
> I am suspecting at the HW level, that is the controller and the
> SecurePath...we are still trying to get best solution from the Local HP
> Support.
> 
> One more questions, is this a common situation in all OCFS users, or I am
> the only one who are facing this issue?
> 
> Rgds/Jeram
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wim Coekaerts [mailto:wim.coekaerts at oracle.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 7:45 AM
> To: Jeram
> Cc: 'Wim Coekaerts'; ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS Questions
> 
> well, it can be recovering right ? this sounds like normal behavior. I'm
> not really the right person to give rac advice, you could try to talk to
> oracle support, I dont' want to give out false info..
> 
> but if it's doing recovery and its reading the redologs and stuff it can
> take time... check your alert log
> 
> Wim
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 07:42:31AM +0700, Jeram wrote:
> > Hi Wim...
> > 
> > I Took the VMSTAT report by starting the RAC server, there is no user
> > connected at that time, we have observed this strange behavior,...even if
> I
> > stop the RAC server it's giving the same value...i realized something is
> > going in my system, but we still not able to figure it out.
> > 
> > Is there any advice from you, to trace what is really going on?
> > 
> > Please advice...
> > 
> > Rgds/Jeram
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wim Coekaerts [mailto:wim.coekaerts at oracle.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 7:34 AM
> > To: Jeram
> > Cc: 'Wim Coekaerts'; ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> > Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS Questions
> > 
> > ok so you're doing massive read so I assume there is more stuff
> > happening on the box. are you doing db queries or something to have this
> > much reads going ?
> > 
> > the writes are pretty low, I don't think by itself it will make a big
> > difference. you should be ok
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 07:33:23AM +0700, Jeram wrote:
> > > Hi Wim...
> > > 
> > > Herewith I am sending you the VMSTAT 1 10 output.
> > > 
> > > Please Advice...
> > > 
> > > Rgds/Jeram
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wim Coekaerts [mailto:wim.coekaerts at oracle.com] 
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:03 AM
> > > To: Jeram
> > > Cc: 'Wim Coekaerts'; ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS Questions
> > > 
> > > if you have a few controllers so that there are multiple queues you
> > > should be ok.
> > > 
> > > run     vmstat 1 10 when not much is going on and email that ?
> > > if you have no io wait if oracle is not running but it's just mounted,
> > > little or a lot of io won't be a problem
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:02:51AM +0700, Jeram wrote:
> > > > Hi Wim...
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks a bunch for ur quick reply. 
> > > > Currently I am using 51 Mount Points, event I have not meet any
> problems
> > > > since my database still having low Load, I just wonder if the DB load
> > > > increase it will have some performance issues. We are using EVA6000
> > > Storage
> > > > with 17TB HDD size....
> > > > 
> > > > Please advice...
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wim Coekaerts [mailto:wim.coekaerts at oracle.com] 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:50 AM
> > > > To: Jeram
> > > > Cc: ocfs-users at oss.oracle.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [Ocfs-users] OCFS Questions
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 1. What is the Maximum mount point suggested if we are using OCFS ?
> > > > 
> > > > 20-30 seems to not be a problem, if you have real hardare with a good
> > > > setup, we have seen folks use up to 60
> > > > 
> > > > > 2. Is there any method to tune the OCFS to booster the IO
> performance?
> > > > 
> > > > uhm, we are equal to raw. I dont' think so.
> > > 
> > 
> >