[Ocfs2-users] Hi

[Alexei_Roudnev]

Problem comes because OCFSv1 was designed as a simplified _oracle datafiles
only_ file system (you can't use it for anything else)
so it can do one thing only - keep oracle files - but do it well.

OCFSv2 is fully functional file system. Unfortunately, it lost some of
OCFSv1 reliability because of this (not because of the bad design, but
because common use FS have a higher requirements in the cluster). THis
reliability increases in the recent versions,
but is still much lower vs OCFSv1 (and the only way to reach OCFSv1
reliability is to implement '_ocfsv1 compatibility_ mode with
the same restrictions as in OCFSv1).

As I can understand (I dont work in Oracle), they work heavy to improve it,
but again, it is not a bug, it is a natural problem with
any cluster file system - you must select between _very restrictive access
by well known and predictrive application/excellent reliability_ and _common
use FS / more restrictive behavior in case of cluster problems_. So it takes
time to fix it all.

(We selected _ASM for data files, OCFSv2 for the backups and archive logs_
which works pretty well but stil require reliability improvements. But it is
just my personal preferences.)



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ulf Zimmermann" <ulf at atc-onlane.com>
To: "Sunil Mushran" <Sunil.Mushran at oracle.com>; "Alexei_Roudnev"
<Alexei_Roudnev at exigengroup.com>
Cc: <Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Ocfs2-users] Hi



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ocfs2-users-bounces at oss.oracle.com [mailto:ocfs2-users-
> bounces at oss.oracle.com] On Behalf Of Sunil Mushran
> Sent: 05/07/2007 10:47
> To: Alexei_Roudnev
> Cc: Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
> Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] Hi
>
> None of what you have written allows you to use our resources to
> spread your opinions as official recommendation.
>
> Alexei_Roudnev wrote:
> >
> > Oracle itself have not a SINGLE opinion (to be curious, I hear a
strong
> > recommendation against OCFSv2 from oracle support, which I can not
agree
> > with), so we can't treat your recommendations as official as well -
you
> are
> > interested in OCFSv2 while users are not (users are interested in
making
> our
> > data centers run smoothly). The only _official_ thing is
_certification
> > matrix_.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > Alexei,
> > While you are free to use this forum to share your opinions, do not
> > couch these opinions as official recommendations. When push comes to
> > shove, we are helping users not you. We develop, build, distribute
> > the software, not you. So it may serve to community better if you
> > let us offer the "official" recommendations and not you.
> >
> > Sunil

Just to add some comments from a user of Oracle 9i with OCFSv1 on RedHat
AS2.1 who tried to upgrade to EL4 and OCFSv2 and failed miserable:

Oracle support pretty much told us the problems we were running into are
problems of OCFSv2 and they weren't really willing to help us. The
feeling we were getting was that two Oracle departments (the one writing
the Database RAC engine and the one writing OCFSv2) are fighting with
each other.

In general I have a very low opinion of Oracle and their quality of code
and tools. Like patch revision numbering? Does not exist. Patch tools
suppose to patch all machines in clusters? You wish. Decent error
messages? They never heard about that.

We ended up with staying on AS2.1 and OCFSv1 for now and just migrating
our data to a new SAN.

Regards, Ulf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
ATC-Onlane Inc., T: 650-532-6382, F: 650-532-6441
4600 Bohannon Drive, Suite 100, Menlo Park, CA 94025
---------------------------------------------------------------------