Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
Karim, I dont see why run ASM over OCFS2. It seems to be a useless overhead. Either you run ASM or OCFS2. Btw, neither ASM nor OCFS2 are smart enough to detect that some LUNs are faster than others. ASM expects each diskgroup to be comprised of LUNs of similar performance in order for it's load balancing algorithms to work. OCFS2, as far as I know doesnt have this type of management built in. See: http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/asm/pdf/take%20the%20guesswork%20out%20of%20db%20tuning%2001-06.pdf Section: ASM Best practices and principals. About the performance, ASM is said to have similar performance to raw devices in a SAME layout, being tightly integrated to Oracle. OCFS2 has some overheads that are inherent to a file system, like cache management, locking, context switching, so it is likely to use more CPU power than ASM. But I dont remember any specific benchmark comparing those. Also, keep in mind that when you use a filesystem you are using part of the memory for the filesystem cache. When using RAW or ASM you would need to allocate this memory to the block buffer in order to compare results. Regards, Luis Hello All, Are there any benchmarks with respect to performance with respect to ASM over OCFS2 vs. standard locally managed tablespaces? In our environment, data files hosting tables/lobs are stored on a RAID6 disk array with 10K rpm disks, whilst indices are stored on a different RAID6 disk array with 15K rpm disks. We’re using oracle managed files for the rollback/undo and temporary tablespaces. Would ASM over OCFS2 be smart enough to detect the fast LUNs? Appreciate your thoughts. Best regards, Karim ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
Karim, This is one big environment. I dont see how ASM over OCFS2 would give easier administration than only ASM or only OCFS2. The only situation I see that is reasonable to use ASM over a cooked filesystem would be when using a NAS device that doesnt support direct block access. Also I dont understand why you say that RAC needs a shared filesystem. When you use ASM you dont need to have a shared filesystem. If you go ASM, you will need to install the cluster services on each server that shares a ASM diskgroup, even if it has no RAC databases. The same goes to OCFS2, you will need to install the OCFS2 services on each server that shares a OCFS2 filesystem. If you do both, you will have to install both. ASM has some interesting storage like features, for example extended clusters and online disk reorganization. You can do some of these with OCFS2. For example, adding a disk. But try to remove a OCFS2 volume with the database online and not disrupt your users. ASM can do that. On the other hand ASM is less transparent. You have little control on how the data is layout, and the only tool to manage files is a ftp like client, that you need to use to delete dangling files or if you need to backup something manually. Database backups would usually need to go through RMAN. On OCFS2 you can use standard operating system commands to manage the datafiles. ASM also has no recovery tools, like fsck. Regards, Luis --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Karim Alkhayer kkha...@gmail.com wrote: From: Karim Alkhayer kkha...@gmail.com Subject: RE: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces To: lfreita...@yahoo.com, ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 10:47 AM We’re using OCFS2 for RAC on top of SLES9, which we’re 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 From: ocfs2-users-boun...@oss.oracle.com [mailto:ocfs2-users-boun...@oss.oracle.com] On Behalf Of Luis Freitas Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 2:16 PM To: ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces Karim, I dont see why run ASM over OCFS2. It seems to be a useless overhead. Either you run ASM or OCFS2. Btw, neither ASM nor OCFS2 are smart enough to detect that some LUNs are faster than others. ASM expects each diskgroup to be comprised of LUNs of similar performance in order for it's load balancing algorithms to work. OCFS2, as far as I know doesnt have this type of management built in. See: http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/asm/pdf/take%20the%20guesswork%20out%20of%20db%20tuning%2001-06.pdf Section: ASM Best practices and principals. About the performance, ASM is said to have similar performance to raw devices in a SAME layout, being tightly integrated to Oracle. OCFS2 has some overheads that are inherent to a file system, like cache management, locking, context switching, so it is likely to use more CPU power than ASM. But I dont remember any specific benchmark comparing those. Also, keep in mind that when you use a filesystem you are using part of the memory for the filesystem cache. When using RAW or ASM you would need to allocate this memory to the block buffer in order to compare results. Regards, Luis Hello All, Are there any benchmarks with respect to performance with respect to ASM over OCFS2 vs. standard locally managed tablespaces? In our environment, data files hosting tables/lobs are stored on a RAID6 disk array with 10K rpm disks, whilst indices are stored on a different RAID6 disk array with 15K rpm disks. We’re using oracle managed files for the rollback/undo and temporary tablespaces. Would ASM over OCFS2 be smart enough to detect the fast LUNs? Appreciate your thoughts. Best regards, Karim ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Re: [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 timeout’s 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 won’t 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 We’re using OCFS2 for RAC on top of SLES9, which we’re 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
Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
Hi Karim, this sound like hard work to do. ;-) May be this is intressting: I have heard that it would be possible to drive CRS and ASM Version 11 with Oracle DB version 10g. All information’s without warranty, of course. May be you can re-think about the standby solution. Than I would apply, that this is a suitable solution. Good Luck 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 ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
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
Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
The upgrade is possible using DBUA, The databases will not be affected with the ASM upgrade as they will remain in the original release Thing is, the approach is not certified on 10.1. only 10.2 onwards, but the same technique might work For ASM to work with OCFS2, the ASM disks must be pre-sized, similar to the ocr and voting disks creation The final product should be quite interesting! Cheers, Karim From: Schmitter, Martin [mailto:martin.schmit...@opitz-consulting.de] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:26 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, this sound like hard work to do. ;-) May be this is intressting: I have heard that it would be possible to drive CRS and ASM Version 11 with Oracle DB version 10g. All informations without warranty, of course. May be you can re-think about the standby solution. Than I would apply, that this is a suitable solution. Good Luck 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 ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
Hi Karim, this sounds sportive. I don’t know why you have concerns about networking with your standby. But I really suggest waive OCFS2. Believe me, you will run into lot of trouble. And this sounds to me, like a very important system. OCFS2 makes the solution more complex and more fragile. Please do not misunderstand this. OCFS2 is a good file system. But OCFS2 in conjunction with CLUSTERWARE/CRS will be very tricky. If there is no way, make sure that your timings will work perfect! Otherwise you will have a tumbler. Networking should not be your problem. A good switch and some truncs and may be some bonding und you will be save. Good Luck 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 ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 04:16:23AM -0800, Luis Freitas wrote: About the performance, ASM is said to have similar performance to raw devices in a SAME layout, being tightly integrated to Oracle. OCFS2 has some overheads that are inherent to a file system, like cache management, locking, context switching, so it is likely to use more CPU power than ASM. But I dont remember any specific benchmark comparing those. ocfs2 has performance equivalent to raw devices when using O_DIRECT, which the database will do for its datafiles. We worked hard at that from the beginning. You won't see filesystem overhead for the O_DIRECT access. You only see the overhead of cache management, etc, for cached (non-O_DIRECT) files, which isn't what you're worried about for database performance. Also, keep in mind that when you use a filesystem you are using part of the memory for the filesystem cache. When using RAW or ASM you would need to allocate this memory to the block buffer in order to compare results. Again, Oracle uses O_DIRECT for datafiles. This keeps the data out of the filesystem cache. A single-node (non-RAC) database can use the filesystem cache, and that can cause benchmark discrepancies, but we're talking about RAC here. Joel -- To spot the expert, pick the one who predicts the job will take the longest and cost the most. Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.bec...@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
[Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
Hello All, Are there any benchmarks with respect to performance with respect to ASM over OCFS2 vs. standard locally managed tablespaces? In our environment, data files hosting tables/lobs are stored on a RAID6 disk array with 10K rpm disks, whilst indices are stored on a different RAID6 disk array with 15K rpm disks. We're using oracle managed files for the rollback/undo and temporary tablespaces. Would ASM over OCFS2 be smart enough to detect the fast LUNs? Appreciate your thoughts. Best regards, Karim ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Re: [Ocfs2-users] ASM over OCFS2 vs. Standard locally managed tablespaces
OTN has a forum for ASM. Please post this qs on that forum. On Feb 7, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Karim Alkhayer kkha...@gmail.com wrote: Hello All, Are there any benchmarks with respect to performance with respect to ASM over OCFS2 vs. standard locally managed tablespaces? In our environment, data files hosting tables/lobs are stored on a RAID6 disk array with 10K rpm disks, whilst indices are stored on a different RAID6 disk array with 15K rpm disks. We’re using oracle managed files for the rollback/undo and temporary tablespaces. Would ASM over OCFS2 be smart enough to detect the fast LUNs? Appreciate your thoughts. Best regards, Karim ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users ___ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
