Rainer Heilke wrote:
If you plan on RAC, then ASM makes good sense. It is
unclear (to me anyway)
if ASM over a zvol is better than ASM over a raw LUN.
Hmm. I thought ASM was really the _only_ effective way to do RAC,
but then, I'm not a DBA (and don't want to be ;-) We'll be just
using raw
If some aspect of the load is writing large amount of data
into the pool (through the memory cache, as opposed to the
zil) and that leads to a frozen system, I think that a
possible contributor should be:
|6429205||each zpool needs to monitor its throughput and throttle heavy
wri
Rainer Heilke wrote On 01/17/07 15:44,:
It turns out we're probably going to go the UFS/ZFS route, with 4 filesystems
(the DB files on
> UFS with Directio).
It seems that the pain of moving from a single-node ASM to a RAC'd ASM is
great, and not worth it.
> The DBA group decided doing the
>We had a 2TB filesystem. No matter what options I set explicitly, the
>UFS filesystem kept getting written with a 1 million file limit.
>Believe me, I tried a lot of options, and they kept getting se t back
>on me.
The limit is documented as "1 million inodes per TB". So something
must not have
Anantha N. Srirama wrote On 01/17/07 08:32,:
Bug 6413510 is the root cause. ZFS maestros please correct me if I'm quoting an
incorrect bug.
Yes, Anantha is correct that is the bug id, which could be responsible
for more disk writes than expected.
Let me try to explain that bug.
The ZIL as d