I bet you use UFS for root/swap.... So you think its easier to get your storage team to adopt a new NAS based server infrastructure than a new filesystem? I still think shipping ZFS snapshots around local disks is a great way to efficiently do bulk replication of read-only content. Its bundled for no cost, other than some operations documentation/training.
You could also use rsync to replicate, not as efficiently as ZFS snapshots, or VxFS may also have a snapshot replication option. You may also want to look at a tool like Signacert that ensures that everything is running the bits that you think they should be (I haven't tried it myself). Adrian On 11/14/07, Hameed, Amir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem with using ZFs is that our data center will have to move > away from their existing offering which is all VxFS based. We can also > use Veritas's VM based replication but again the problem is that one of > the benefits that we are looking at is the "distributed AD" feature > where multiple Oracle workers can be spread over multiple nodes to get > better resource utilization. > I will try to see if I can get information on what technology Oracle is > using internally. Generally speaking on the proposed shared > architecture, what disadvantage do you see as compares to NAS? > > -----Original Message----- > From: adrian cockcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:35 PM > To: Hameed, Amir > Cc: perf-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [perf-discuss] NFS configuration over private network > > I would look at what Oracle is doing with 11i, and try to replicate > whatever configuration they have done most testing with, whatever they > recommend as a best practice. > > IMHO automating patch installation, and fast replication of > installations between systems is an easier class of problem to solve > than making a shared filesystem dependency reliable. > > Have you looked at ZFS snapshot replication? With compression and decent > network bandwidth it should be possible to replicate the common parts of > the Oracle installation directory rapidly, and after a patch it only has > to replicate the changes from the previous snapshot. > > For cost savings, put the Oracle installation on mirrored local disks, > its faster, cheaper, more reliable (especially with ZFS) and its > essentially read-only, so no need to have it backed up or loaded on the > EMC. > > Adrian > > > On 11/14/07, Hameed, Amir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adrian, > > Thanks for the reply. Currently we are looking at the shared versus > > non-shared options and once we weigh the pros and cons then we will > > decide which way to go. With the Shared Application Filesystem, we > > will achieve the following benefits: > > - Any Oracle application patch will need to be applied only once and > > from any tier. This is one of the main issues that this architecture > > will address. In a multi-tiered, multi-node (Oracle Apps) > > architecture, if we use non-shared storage then we will need to patch > > each an every node. Just to give you an idea that currently we have an > > > existing mission critical system that is comprised of a backend > > database server and two middle-tier web servers using non-shared > > storage. During large releases where it is not feasible to patch both > > the middle-tiers due to the time constraints, we patch the backend and > > > one middle-tier server and then replicate the second middle-tier > > server from the first and it takes over five hours to do that. This > way we will eliminate that. > > - Storage savings: We use EMC standard and BCV devices. This will cut > > down the storage cost. We are not talking just one environment here; > > this will be implemented in the entire environment stream. > > - Inability to use some of Oracle's own technologies, specific to the > > 11i apps, where the shared architecture is required. > > > > So, there benefits are there. It is the technology that we are trying > > to figure out to use to achieve this. > > > > Thahks > > Amir > > -----Original Message----- > > From: adrian cockcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:37 AM > > To: Mike Gerdts > > Cc: Hameed, Amir; perf-discuss@opensolaris.org > > Subject: Re: [perf-discuss] NFS configuration over private network > > > > I think you need to stand back from the problem and figure out what > > you are trying to achieve by sharing the Oracle installation, and > > whether that benefit outweighs the complexity of the solution needed > > to get there. > > > > For mission critical installations, minimizing the number of single > > points of failure is most important. The extra work to install Oracle > > on each node is offset by less exposure to problems, less chance that > > you lose the entire RAC rather than one node, a more standard > > installation, and much less work to clean up the mess when something > does go wrong. > > > > My 2c... > > Adrian > > > > On 11/14/07, Mike Gerdts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 14, 2007 8:42 AM, Hameed, Amir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > Thanks for the valuable feedback. To provide high availability, we > > > > > will RAC this system. I would like to ask some follow up questions > > > > > and because I am not a system/Unix administrator (I am an Oracle > > > > Applications and DB Engineer) so please bear with me if I ask a > > > > question that does not make much sense. > > > > - Because NAS also uses NFS, therefore, NAS is as secure/unsecured > > > > > as the OS-based NFS is? > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > - In your opinion, the NFS-based architecture that I am > > > > contemplating where > > > > a) the database server will act as the NFS server > > > > b) filesystems will be shared over a gigabit network > > > > c)IPMP will be used to facilitate NIC failover is as > > > > robust > > > > > > and reliable as what any NAS appliance would offer. > > > > > > Assuming that you use VCS or Solaris Cluster to provide HA-NFS > > > service, I would say that they are comparable. > > > > > > When considering performance, it is important to consider > > > optimizations that exist in NAS appliances - it is common for them > > > to have NVRAM to journal writes that allows them to offer better NFS > > > > performance. On the other hand, I have generally found it harder to > > > > debug any problems that come up with a NAS appliance is in the mix. > > > Hopefully the OpenSolaris emphasis on becoming a storage platform > > > will > > > > > change the industry for the better in this area. > > > > > > -- > > > Mike Gerdts > > > http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > perf-discuss mailing list > > > perf-discuss@opensolaris.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
