12 Replies Latest reply: Apr 4, 2013 1:05 AM by yxes2013 RSS

    OCFS2 vs ASM

    yxes2013
      Hi all,

      Is OCFS2 not used anymore as is replaced by ASM?

      I mean which one is better to use?


      Thanks,

      zxy
        • 1. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
          JustinCave
          Apologies, I read an extra S in ASM.

          What are you trying to accomplish?

          Justin

          Edited by: Justin Cave on Apr 3, 2013 9:52 PM
          • 2. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
            asahide
            Hi,

            - Cluster file system OCFS2 versus Oracle Automatic Storage Management
            <<http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxinfo/v3r0m0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fliaag%2Foracle_rac%2Fl0wozl00_results_ocfs2vsasm.htm>>

            - Oracle 11g RAC database on ASM, ACFS or OCFS2
            <<http://www.dadbm.com/2012/11/oracle-11g-rac-database-on-asm-acfs-or-ocfs2/>>

            Regards,
            • 3. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
              yxes2013
              I want to install clusterware or RAC. So I guess one of them is better to use in
              • 4. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                JustinCave
                Do you really mean "or RAC"? Or do you mean "for RAC"?

                Are you still trying to build a cold failover cluster, avoiding an active/active RAC cluster or a DataGuard standby database?

                Justin
                • 5. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                  yxes2013
                  Thanks asha,

                  I can see that lots of choices and confusions. But my piece of thought is always as I mentioned to "Blueshadow and Billy", all things are created equal so you can use anything as you please,
                  at your own risk :)
                  • 6. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                    yxes2013
                    Are you still trying to build a cold failover cluster, avoiding an active/active RAC cluster or a DataGuard standby database?
                    Sure i do ;)

                    How can I make it RAC when I dont have SAN? only DAS. Do u know how to convert DAS to SAN?

                    And besides our oracle license is for cold failover only :(

                    Anyways if i convert it to RACK would oracle know? ;)

                    And besides, you & hemant are not sharing your ip-bonding scripts for CFC failover :(( sad

                    Anyways, have you yet configured CFC? if not.... can you try it first in a VMbox? see if you can configure one, I will give you Usd10 for snacks. :)
                    • 7. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                      sb92075
                      yxes2013 wrote:
                      Are you still trying to build a cold failover cluster, avoiding an active/active RAC cluster or a DataGuard standby database?
                      Sure i do ;)
                      http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28282/configbp003.htm#sthref356
                      • 8. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                        yxes2013
                        Thanks dear, :)

                        I'm curious about the "scripts" they are talking about really. I wonder why do I need a script when clusterware is already taking charge.
                        • 9. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                          JustinCave
                          yxes2013 wrote:
                          How can I make it RAC when I dont have SAN? only DAS. Do u know how to convert DAS to SAN?
                          As you've been told a few times already, those are completely different pieces of hardware. A SAN is a SAN. A DAS is a DAS.
                          And besides our oracle license is for cold failover only :(
                          OK, so you're not licensed for RAC? Why not use DataGuard (or roll your own standby)?
                          And besides, you & hemant are not sharing your ip-bonding scripts for CFC failover :(( sad
                          Huh? First off, I don't believe that anyone has refused to share any scripts with you. I haven't been able to understand what you're asking for.
                          Anyways, have you yet configured CFC? if not.... can you try it first in a VMbox? see if you can configure one, I will give you Usd10 for snacks. :)
                          Not on linux, no. And not with the products you're looking at.

                          It sounds like you're asking us to do your job for you. If you're in over your head, there are plenty of consulting companies that would be happy to come in for a week or two to set up whatever you'd like.

                          Justin
                          • 10. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                            yxes2013
                            OK, so you're not licensed for RAC? Why not use DataGuard (or roll your own standby)?
                            I told you also, i have configured "already" my standby database. And again CFC in not for DR, well I know they are just the same thing.

                            By what I want to configure is HA cold failover to another cpu/memory/nic.
                            It sounds like you're asking us to do your job for you. If you're in over your head, there are plenty of consulting companies that would be happy to come in for a week or two to set up whatever you'd like.
                            So are you interested? what is your rate per hour :D

                            Thanks,

                            Edited by: yxes2013 on 3.4.2013 22:53
                            • 11. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                              JustinCave
                              What does a cold failover cluster give you that a standby database does not? In both cases, when the primary fails, you have to switch over to the secondary.

                              Justin
                              • 12. Re: OCFS2 vs ASM
                                yxes2013
                                What does a cold failover cluster give you that a standby database does not? In both cases, when the primary fails, you have to switch over to the secondary.
                                Well, Im just new comer here. The design is already existing. Maybe the purpose of this is for redundancy. The CFC is the first level of HA, and standby is the 2nd level HA ;)

                                The first is faster to recover while the 2nd is slower and may cause data loss if archivelogs are not complete.


                                Thankssss