[Ocfs2-users] Why OCFS2 with RAC

[Ulf Zimmermann]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ocfs2-users-bounces at oss.oracle.com [mailto:ocfs2-users-
> bounces at oss.oracle.com] On Behalf Of David Johle
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 10:37 AM
> To: ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
> Subject: [Ocfs2-users] Why OCFS2 with RAC
> 
> I have been a user of OCFS2 for quite some time now (2 years or so)
> and a user of Oracle RAC for several years as well.  My usage of
> these two is completely independent though, the cluster filesystem is
> for application level usage (web servers, etc.) only because RAC can
> manage its own shared storage directly.  And that brings me to my
> observation/question...

We have been running Oracle RAC on top of OCFS1 and OCFS2 now for close 
to over 7 years I think.

We had throughout that time only 2 times major issues, which in both 
cases were quickly solved with help of Sunil and other OCFS developers.

> 
> I keep seeing a lot of messages on the list relating to the use of
> ocfs2 on systems running RAC--often with problems in the OCFS2 camp,
> but that's just the nature of this list.  What I'm trying to
> understand is why one would even consider adding OCFS2 to the systems
> running RAC.  To me that is just adding complexity to critical
> systems, and complexity tyipcally results in decreased
> reliability/availability in the long term.

For us it was the only choice because with the amount of databases our
DBAs were not willing to go to raw storage (when ASM wasn't available yet
I believe original). OCFS2 has worked pretty well for us.

> 
> I have iSCSI targets, available on multiple paths, presented as block
> devices with device-mapper-multipath.  My data & flash recovery are
> then managed by ASM, which directly uses those block devices.  For my
> OCR & voting disks, one could do the same with block devices,
> although I know there were some issues with using block devices on
> certain versions, but raw devices are another option there.  In my
> case, I simply use libraw to present the iSCSI based block devices as
> raw devices, and that's what they use.
> 
> Having RAC directly deal with the shared storage eliminates a lot of
> filesystem level overhead and removes a potential outside force that
> could unexpectedly bring DB nodes down (i.e. ocfs2 cluster stack
> fencing itself).  Not to mention the reduction in system
> administration resources for manging the filesystem.
> 
> One place I could see a use for the OCFS2 is a shared ORACLE_HOME
> among nodes, but that has its own pros & cons which can be debated on
> some other mailing list :)
> 
> 
> So I'm curious, what benefits are there to having the OCFS2 available
> on the RAC system, moreso related to using it for CRS and DB storage
> purposes?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs2-users mailing list
> Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users