On Feb 13, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Tony MacDoodle wrote:
Was wondering if anyone has had any performance issues with Oracle running on
ZFS as compared to UFS?
The ZFS for Databases wiki is the place to collect information and advice
for database on ZFS.
Using ZFS for Oracle can be configured to deliver very good performance.
Depending on what your priorities are in terms of critical metrics, keep
in mind
that the most performant solution is to use Oracle ASM on raw disk devices.
That is not intended to imply anything negative about ZFS or UFS.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jim Mauro james.ma...@sun.com wrote:
Using ZFS for Oracle can be configured to deliver very good performance.
Depending on what your priorities are in terms of critical metrics, keep in
mind
that the most performant solution is to use Oracle ASM on raw disk
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
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
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
Don't use raidz for the raid type - go with a striped set
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
