<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-7">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>We’re using OCFS2 for RAC on top of SLES9, which we’re
going to upgrade to SLES10. Around 10 TB RAID6 multi disk arrays, 5 databases
on RAC, and 5 single instances standby for the primary site<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>As there is no AI component in ASM to detect the fast LUNs, and
RAC on SLES requires a shared file system. Therefore, on a set of identical
LUNs, in terms of capacity and speed, ASM should take care of distributing the balance
over LUNs, and OCFS2 is expected to work even better if these LUNs are placed
on several disk groups (arrays)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>How would this scenario (ASM over OCFS2) work? What are the cons
and pros? Keep in mind that the goal of such a concept is provide performance
and reliability with the least possible administration<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Appreciate your thoughts<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Karim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
ocfs2-users-bounces@oss.oracle.com [mailto:ocfs2-users-bounces@oss.oracle.com] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Luis Freitas<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 09, 2009 2:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed
tablespaces<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal>Karim,<br>
<br>
I dont see why run ASM over OCFS2. It seems to be a useless
overhead. Either you run ASM or OCFS2.<br>
<br>
Btw, neither ASM nor OCFS2 are smart enough to detect that some
LUNs are faster than others. ASM expects each diskgroup to be comprised of
LUNs of similar performance in order for it's load balancing algorithms to
work. OCFS2, as far as I know doesnt have this type of management built in.<br>
<br>
See:<br>
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/asm/pdf/take%20the%20guesswork%20out%20of%20db%20tuning%2001-06.pdf<br>
Section: ASM Best practices and principals.<br>
<br>
About the performance, ASM is said to have similar performance
to raw devices in a SAME layout, being tightly integrated to Oracle. OCFS2
has some overheads that are inherent to a file system, like cache management,
locking, context switching, so it is likely to use more CPU power than ASM.
But I dont remember any specific benchmark comparing those. <br>
<br>
Also, keep in mind that when you use a filesystem you are
using part of the memory for the filesystem cache. When using RAW or ASM you
would need to allocate this memory to the block buffer in order to compare
results.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Luis<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><br>
> Hello All,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Are there any benchmarks with respect to performance with respect to <br>
> ASM over OCFS2 vs. standard locally managed tablespaces?<br>
><br>
> In our environment, data files hosting tables/lobs are stored on a <br>
> RAID6 disk array with 10K rpm disks, whilst indices are stored on a <br>
> different RAID6 disk array with 15K rpm disks.<br>
><br>
> We˘re using oracle managed files for the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> rollback/undo and temporary <br>
> tablespaces.<br>
><br>
> Would ASM over OCFS2 be smart enough to detect the fast LUNs?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Appreciate your thoughts.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> Karim<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ocfs2-users mailing list<br>
> Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com<br>
> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ocfs2-users mailing list<br>
Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com<br>
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users<o:p></o:p></pre></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>