Installing oracle 10g RAC

[Raj_112345]

Hi,

Is CFS file systems available in hp-ux 11i v3 good option or raw file systems good option for installing oracle 10 RAC on serviceguard ?

I have heard that traditionally raw file systems used to give better I/O performance.

Secondly, raw file system can be mounted at the same time by both the nodes.

Does CFS file system has the capability to mount both file system by multiple nodes at the same time ?

Thanks,
Raj

[Duncan Edmonstone · Accepted solution]

The CFS filesystem for 11iv3 isn't quite released yet... it should be any day now though. It's been out on 11iv2 for a couple of years though. The proper name for this product when used with Oracle RAC is 'Serviceguard Storage Management Suite for Oracle RAC':

http://www.hp.com/go/sgsms

It's certainly a great option in terms of management, and the performance difference between a CFS filesystem and raw is pretty negligible given the advantages it has. This is because it uses an Oracle API called ODM which allows Oracle to do asynchronous IO into the data files. There's a whitepaper on ODM performance here:

http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA1-2527ENW.pdf

As for your other point - it wouldn't be a cluster filesystem if it couldn't be mounted from more than one node at the same time.

Tech details on CFS are here:

http://docs.hp.com/en/ha.html#HP%20Serviceguard%20Storage%20Management%20Suite

and here (as pertaining to RAC):

http://docs.hp.com/en/ha.html#Serviceguard%20Extension%20for%20Real%20Application%20Cluster%20%28ServiceGuard%20OPS%20Edition%29

HTH

Duncan

[Sajjad Sahir]

Dear Raj
Please see it
"Attachment deleted as per ITRC Guidelines, the document attached was HP Internal!"

[Hein van den Heuvel]

Sajjad,

The document you attached is intended to be "only accessable by employees of Hewlett Packard, Oracle and selected partners."

While it is not marked explicitly marked as copyrighted or internal use only it is clearly intended that way.

By publishing it as an attachement, instead of a link, you violated the trust of who-ever provided you with the document as well as the ITRC Forum guidelines.

This is certainly why the original attachment was removed, and why the new attachment will probably soon be removed as well.

Raj, as per above, if yo do not have that username/password, then I'm afraid that you are 99% sure not supposed to have it.
HP and Oracle want to protect their investment and control the dissimination of this information (to avoid information being used out of context).

Pertinent information from those internal discussion will eventually make it to the releasenotes and metalink documents after having been tried, tested and reviewed in a controlled environment.

Hope this explains,
Best regards,
Hein van den Heuvel

(ps... No, I did not, and can not delete the attachment, but I did used to work with the folks behind it).

[Raj_112345]

Well, if is copy righted material. I will not use it. Thanks.

- Raj

[Hein van den Heuvel]

Raj, if you, and others as well I assume, grabbed the HTML file while it was there then I would certainly read it and even use but with some restraint. Doublecheck the recommendations, and do not construct it as "HP told me to ...". Just use it as nice hints if and when you would not know what else to do.

Also, knowing exactly what is out there makes it easier to request a formal copy from an HP or Oracle representative should you feel better about that.

fwiw,
Hein.