[Ocfs2-users] Hi

[Luis Freitas]

Ulf,
   
      I have implemented a few RAC databases and worked with OCFS, OCFS2, NetApp and ASM on different machines.
   
     In my opinion, currently, OCFS2 seems to be rather stable for Oracle use, except for some race conditions with CRS when the CRS files are on OCFS2 and the small default timeouts. Both can be tuned or worked around so as to not cause major headaches.
   
      One thing that caused me trouble was the fact that 10g has asyncronous I/O linked in by default, this was changed from what was on 9i, and the async I/O handlers deplete very fast if they are not tuned up when using OCFS2. Somehow this seems to be completely undocumented except for some ancient RedHat papers, and seems to cause problems in CRS. This can be seen as /proc/sys/fs/aio-nr reaches the value on /proc/sys/fs/aio-max-nr.
   
      Aside from that usually the problems I have are on changes of the optimizer or some 10g specific bugs causing ORA-600. One thing that is very important is to gather statistics, including "system" statistics, as there is a big change on the optimizer that now considers also the CPU cost for choosing the execution plan. This change on the optimizer also appears when applying 9.2.0.7 and 9.2.0.8.
   
      Hope you have better luck on the next try.
   
  Regards,
  Luis
  
Ulf Zimmermann <ulf at atc-onlane.com> wrote:
  
> -----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
---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-users mailing list
Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users


       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20070507/e07fff1c/attachment-0001.html