Jason J. W. Williams writes:
Hi Anantha,
I was curious why segregating at the FS level would provide adequate
I/O isolation? Since all FS are on the same pool, I assumed flogging a
FS would flog the pool and negatively affect all the other FS on that
pool?
Best Regards,
Jason
Hello Anantha,
Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 2:35:01 PM, you wrote:
ANS You're probably hitting the same wall/bug that I came across;
ANS ZFS in all versions up to and including Sol10U3 generates
ANS excessive I/O when it encounters 'fssync' or if any of the files
ANS were opened with 'O_DSYNC'
Rainer Heilke wrote:
I'll know for sure later today or tomorrow, but it sounds like they are
seriously considering the ASM route. Since we will be going to RAC later
this year, this move makes the most sense. We'll just have to hope that
the DBA group gets a better understanding of LUN's and
Rainer Heilke wrote:
What do you mean by UFS wasn't an option due to
number of files?
Exactly that. UFS has a 1 million file limit under Solaris. Each Oracle
Financials environment well exceeds this limitation.
Really?!? I thought Oracle would use a database for storage...
Also do you
What do you mean by UFS wasn't an option due to
number of files?
Exactly that. UFS has a 1 million file limit under Solaris. Each Oracle
Financials environment well exceeds this limitation.
what ?
$ uname -a
SunOS core 5.10 Generic_118833-17 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi-cEngine
$ df -F
Dennis Clarke wrote:
What do you mean by UFS wasn't an option due to
number of files?
Exactly that. UFS has a 1 million file limit under Solaris. Each Oracle
Financials environment well exceeds this limitation.
what ?
$ uname -a
SunOS core 5.10 Generic_118833-17 sun4u sparc
Hi Anantha,
I was curious why segregating at the FS level would provide adequate
I/O isolation? Since all FS are on the same pool, I assumed flogging a
FS would flog the pool and negatively affect all the other FS on that
pool?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/17/07, Anantha N. Srirama [EMAIL
