Thanks Luis/Martin for your thoughts
Im 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. Thats why were 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 dont have to rely on the network during crisis. Since were upgrading to SLES10 SP2, it is expected to have OCFS2 much more stable. However, I still believe that well 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 . Thats 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.schmit...@opitz-consulting.de] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 3:52 PM To: Karim Alkhayer; lfreita...@yahoo.com; ocfs2-users@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 timeouts 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 wont 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-boun...@oss.oracle.com [ocfs2-users-boun...@oss.oracle.com] im Auftrag von Karim Alkhayer [kkha...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Montag, 9. Februar 2009 13:47 An: lfreita...@yahoo.com; ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com Betreff: Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces Were using OCFS2 for RAC on top of SLES9, which were 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
_______________________________________________ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
