[ale] fiber channel mounts

[Jeff Lightner]

I'm saying while OCFS2 was initially designed for Oracle there is
nothing prohibiting one from using it for other purposes since it is
Open Source (i.e. no cost).

 

However, it probably makes more sense to investigate GFS first if you're
not already familiar with OCFS2.

 

________________________________

From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
scott
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:40 PM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
Cc: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
Subject: Re: [ale] fiber channel mounts

 

OCFS2 works very well with oracle...  GFS is a general purpose clustered
filesystem...

Sent from my mobile...


On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:30, "Jeff Lightner" <jlightner at water.com> wrote:

	You could get OCFS2 (open source) from Oracle's web site.  It's
designed to allow you to use the same storage in a clustered
configuration.  We use its predecessor OCFS for one of our old Oracle
RAC environments but RAC isn't required as OCFS2 handles its own
clustering setup.  Its also reportedly a much improved product over
OCFS(1).   It uses Linux' O_DIRECT stuff for the file sharing so the
tools you use have to be O_DIRECT aware and I think most of the newer
ones (tar, ls, cp, mv etc...) are.   When we did it back on RHEL3 (2.4
kernel) we had to load the utilities Oracle had made that were (also
open source).

	 

	Also GFS I believe is designed for similar usage and is native
to most distros but I haven't used it.

	 

	
________________________________


	From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Kinney
	Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:33 AM
	To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!
	Subject: [ale] fiber channel mounts

	 

	I have a netapp joined by fiber channel to 2 linux head end
servers. I'm using multipath fiber channel in an active/active mode for
maximum data throughput.
	
	box 1 can write a file and read that file is there. Box 2 can't
see the file exists. 
	box 2 can write file and see it on the netapp but box one does
not see it.
	
	run sync on both boxes and umount/mount the netapp storage space
again.
	both box 1 & 2 see the file written from box 1 but the file
written from box 2 is gone.
	
	this is bad. Clearly I have a misconfiguration somewhere! Box 2
shows errors related to ext3 journal corruption so ext3 is NOT a good
choice.
	
	Box 2 is supposed to be a failover database and the netapp is
the storage for the database files. I would prefer for the failover to
be closer to a hot standby than a cold standby but it looks like I can't
keep the netapp partition mounted on box 2 if box 1 is still live. I'm
not running the database at all on box 2.
	
	-- 
	-- 
	James P. Kinney III
	Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness         

	 

	Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure. 

	 

	Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or
attachments. 

	----------------------------------
	CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or
confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you
have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
	----------------------------------

	_______________________________________________
	Ale mailing list
	Ale at ale.org
	http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
	See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
	http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20091207/59982785/attachment-0001.html