[Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces

[Karim Alkhayer]

Thanks Luis/Martin for your thoughts

 

I’m raising this comparison noting the following givens:

RAC is operating on Oracle 10.1.0.5; so the ASM is a bit far beyond hot
fixes.

OCFS2 is also old on SLES9 SP3. That’s why we’re considering the upgrade to
SLES10 SP2.

Oracle software upgrade is not an option for the moment due to applications’
certification.

The RAC + Standby node will be sharing a file system prepared specifically
for recovery  and staging, so that we don’t have to rely on the network
during crisis.

Since we’re upgrading to SLES10 SP2, it is expected to have OCFS2 much more
stable. However, I still believe that we’ll be stuck to the existing setup
where the databases are not self-managed, and because of the upgrade is
primarily for the sake of OCFS2 . That’s why ASM over OCFS2, from a concept
point of view, could introduce the best of the two worlds.

 

Best regards,

Karim

 

 

 

From: Schmitter, Martin [mailto:Martin.Schmitter at opitz-consulting.de] 
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 3:52 PM
To: Karim Alkhayer; lfreitas34 at yahoo.com; ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
Subject: AW: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed
tablespaces

 

Hi Karim,

 

as Luis already stated:

 

It is not useful to install an ASM “Cluster File System!” on OCFS2. ASM is a
full functional Cluster File System for Oracle DBs 10g and 11g. There is no
need of a second Cluster File System. You will run in a lot of trouble
setting the right timeout’s and preventing different decisions of the CRS
and OCFS2. Please keep in mind, that both (CRS and OCFS2) are able to reboot
your nodes. If you are working with 10g or 11g make use of ASM! Take care of
the ASM Hot Fixes! ASM does all you need. Load balancing, striping,
mirroring, and a lot more


 

OCFS2 is a good choice if you are using 3rd party applications and you need
a shared storage. E.g. you are using Oracle 9i with CRS. Oracle 9i data
files won’t work with ASM, so you need another Cluster File System. If have
done a project with 9i and CRS on OCFS2. This was hard work, but it works
fine.

 

OCFS2 is really great, but if your running a database 10g or 11g, ASM is and
will be the best choice.

 

BR

 

Martin Schmitter

 

 

-- 

 

 

OPITZ CONSULTING Gummersbach GmbH

Martin Schmitter - Fachinformatiker

Kirchstr. 6 - 51647 Gummersbach

http://www.opitz-consulting.de

Geschäftsführer: Bernhard Opitz, Martin Bertelsmeier 

HRB-Nr. 39163 Amtsgericht Köln

  _____  

Von: ocfs2-users-bounces at oss.oracle.com [ocfs2-users-bounces at oss.oracle.com]
im Auftrag von Karim Alkhayer [kkhayer at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 9. Februar 2009 13:47
An: lfreitas34 at yahoo.com; ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
Betreff: Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed
tablespaces

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

 

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)

 

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

 

Appreciate your thoughts

 

Best regards,

Karim

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20090209/6b6bfae5/attachment-0001.html