Re: [zfs-discuss] Oracle Performance - ZFS vs UFS (Jason King)
There is of course the caveat of using raw devices with databases (it becomes harder to track usage, especially as the number of LUNs increases, slightly less visibility into their usage statistics at the OS level ). However perhaps now someone can implement the CR I filed a long time ago to add ASM support to libfstyp.so that would allow zfs, mkfs, format, etc. to identify ASM volumes =) While that would be nice, I would submit that if using ASM, usage becomes solely a DBA problem. From the OS level, as a system admin, I don't really care…I refer any questions back to the DBA. They should have tools to deal with all that. OTOH, with more things stacked on more servers (zones, etc.) I might care if there's a chance of whatever Oracle is doing affecting performance elsewhere. Thoughts? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Oracle Performance - ZFS vs UFS (Jason King)
My problem is when you have 100+ luns divided between OS and DB, keeping track of what's for what can become problematic. It becomes even worse when you start adding luns -- the chance of accidentally grabbing a DB lun instead of one of the new ones is non-trivial (then there's also the chance that your storage guy might make a mistake and give you luns already mapped elsewhere on accident -- which I have seen happen before). And when you're forced to do it at 3am after already working 12 hours that day well safeguards are a good thing. On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Allen Eastwood mi...@paconet.us wrote: There is of course the caveat of using raw devices with databases (it becomes harder to track usage, especially as the number of LUNs increases, slightly less visibility into their usage statistics at the OS level ). However perhaps now someone can implement the CR I filed a long time ago to add ASM support to libfstyp.so that would allow zfs, mkfs, format, etc. to identify ASM volumes =) While that would be nice, I would submit that if using ASM, usage becomes solely a DBA problem. From the OS level, as a system admin, I don't really care…I refer any questions back to the DBA. They should have tools to deal with all that. OTOH, with more things stacked on more servers (zones, etc.) I might care if there's a chance of whatever Oracle is doing affecting performance elsewhere. Thoughts? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Oracle Performance - ZFS vs UFS (Jason King)
So, one of the tricks I've used in the past is to assign a volname in format as I use luns. Dunno if that's an option with ASM? ZFS seems to blow those away, the last time I looked. -A On Feb 13, 2010, at 14:32 , Jason King wrote: My problem is when you have 100+ luns divided between OS and DB, keeping track of what's for what can become problematic. It becomes even worse when you start adding luns -- the chance of accidentally grabbing a DB lun instead of one of the new ones is non-trivial (then there's also the chance that your storage guy might make a mistake and give you luns already mapped elsewhere on accident -- which I have seen happen before). And when you're forced to do it at 3am after already working 12 hours that day well safeguards are a good thing. On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Allen Eastwood mi...@paconet.us wrote: There is of course the caveat of using raw devices with databases (it becomes harder to track usage, especially as the number of LUNs increases, slightly less visibility into their usage statistics at the OS level ). However perhaps now someone can implement the CR I filed a long time ago to add ASM support to libfstyp.so that would allow zfs, mkfs, format, etc. to identify ASM volumes =) While that would be nice, I would submit that if using ASM, usage becomes solely a DBA problem. From the OS level, as a system admin, I don't really care…I refer any questions back to the DBA. They should have tools to deal with all that. OTOH, with more things stacked on more servers (zones, etc.) I might care if there's a chance of whatever Oracle is doing affecting performance elsewhere. Thoughts? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
