- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Old debate: Raw Device Vs. File System
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-15-2004 03:55 AM
тАО03-15-2004 03:55 AM
Re: Old debate: Raw Device Vs. File System
the powerPoint presentation is dated Feb'98 I guess vxfs may have improved since.
If the test program is available, has anybody run this test on HPUX 11.0 11i ?
What are the results ?
In SEP's thread I was wondering if redo on raw would be a good choice (this is as I do not have OnlineJFS). I suppose the choice is much clearer for you.
Jean-Luc
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-15-2004 07:20 AM
тАО03-15-2004 07:20 AM
Re: Old debate: Raw Device Vs. File System
I found some more my DBA sent me... I can give you the metalink IDs and post them here...
Doc ID: Note:37914.1 and Note:29676.1
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-15-2004 06:58 PM
тАО03-15-2004 06:58 PM
Re: Old debate: Raw Device Vs. File System
As you can read in the previous entries : using a filesystem for Oracle datafiles does not really bring performance down, and it gives you a lot of flexibility : autoextending datafiles, cold backups, a lot of filesystem management tools, ...
The only reason I see to ise RAW device files, is when you plan to use oracle RAC in the future, because that is only supported on raw device fies.
I am using oracle RAC and thus need raw device files, and I think raw device files are a serious disadvantage in managebility and flexibility. Sometimes I still dream about the days before RAC made everything more difficult.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-15-2004 07:38 PM
тАО03-15-2004 07:38 PM
Re: Old debate: Raw Device Vs. File System
to Wim:
we have built an Oracle RAC on Solaris 2.9 with "Veritas DBE/AC for Oracle RAC,Version 3.5". This Package from Veritas allows you to build an Oracle RAC on Filesystems.
We tested RAC on Solaris 2.9 with Solaris Cluster 3.0 on Raw Device and there was no measurable difference.
Details:
Oracle 9.2.0.4, 4 Nodes in 2 locations (about 14 km distance), EMC L1000 on both sides, Size of the database 100GB.
Chris
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-15-2004 08:15 PM
тАО03-15-2004 08:15 PM
Re: Old debate: Raw Device Vs. File System
You have bought to the forefront a discussion which i deem interesting.
Please review the link below for some advantages of filesystems
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_white/xfs_white_paper.html
The following is what Oracle thinks :-)
Raw Devices vs. Filesystems
---------------------------
When possible, advanced file systems such as xfs, jfs, or vxfs should be preferred over ufs file systems. This is to utilize the improved journal and performance features (such as elimination of double buffering) that advanced file systems offer over ufs. It must be noted that if you configure your system using ufs file systems the necessary file system level parameters need to be configured and tuned, as the default values will not provide optimal performance.
When using Veritas vxfs file systems, Quick I/O can provide raw device comparable performance without losing the benefits of a file system. This is because the Quick I/O driver intercepts all DBWR writes (when enabled) thus bypassing the file system buffer cache. This provides raw device comparable performance, as the classic problems of double buffering and wasted CPU
cycles in managing the file system buffer cache are avoided. When using other types of advanced file systems, Direct I/O can be preferred if supported by the OS, as it too provides raw device comparable performance. The use of raw devices does not add any significant value when compared to advanced file systems with Quick/Direct I/O drivers (wherever applicable).
Raw devices do add a level of operational complexity without justifiable performance benefits, when compared to advanced file systems configured with Veritas Quick I/O or Direct I/O (supported by the OS). In these cases, the configuration and use of raw devices should be reserved for Oracle Parallel Server implementations.
Asynchronous I-O
Oracle configured with asynchronous I/O has been found to work effectively only on raw devices across most flavors of UNIX. Asynchronous I/O on regular file systems is supported on some operating systems such as Solaris. Depending on your I/O system configuration, you may observe that Direct I/O or Quick I/O can offer comparable performance when using specialized file
systems such as Veritas (vxfs). You may also have the option of configuring the relevant Oracle instance parameters for multiple database writer support. But normally you either enable asynchronous I/O or multiple database writers, not both.
regards
Mobeen
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-16-2004 01:11 AM
тАО03-16-2004 01:11 AM
Re: Old debate: Raw Device Vs. File System
Wim> Sometimes I still dream about the days before RAC made everything more difficult.
Ha, it makes me dream of Alpha just continueing (with A |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| logo on the box :-), with Tru64 and a native Cluster File System, Single System images, transparant cluster management, transparant disk serving, transparent mutli-path.
Soon, but not soon enough to hold you breath for it, coming to an hpux (11.31) system near you! (or 11.33, whatever). In our (Nashua, NH) labs today.
Grins,
Hein.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-16-2004 01:19 AM
тАО03-16-2004 01:19 AM
Re: Old debate: Raw Device Vs. File System
I just rememebered a few more Pros for mounted oracle FS...
1) BCV Snapshots for Cold backups and Point-in-Time transaction reporting...
2) RMAN backups
I never liked RAW even when there was no other option, so I may be a bit jaded against raw devices for Oracle.
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »