Ken Simpson wrote:I don't think there's been anything published that limits DBFS's usage to staging data. While that is a common use case, it isn't the only use case and you have pointed out a few other valid use cases. DBFS isn't a pseudo cluster filesystem - it is a true cluster filesystem just like NFS, ACFS, or others.
Dan, my understanding is that best practices for DBFS on Exadata is for use as a staging area for loading data. Any thoughts on using it instead for a pseudo cluster filesystem for housing scripts, logs, etc for the compute nodes?
robinsc wrote:We've often suggested to customers that they place datafiles in DBFS_DG. While the diskgroup name may suggest DBFS, that certainly isn't the only use. It is a diskgroup and can be used as such for any data that is suitable to the characteristics of the DBFS_DG diskgroup (redundancy, etc).
You cannot change the size of this partition. For example I can guess that you have a quarter rack system
as each portion of disk that is added to the dbfs diskgroup ( which used to be called the system dg) is 27 Gb in size you have
27*10 * 3=approx 810 Gb in your DBFS .
You cannot add these volumes to DATA or RECO without either having widely varying candidate disks in your disk group which is a major no-no. This is one of the facts of life of the exadata architecture.