Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    369

    Unanswered: raw versus cooked filesystems with Oracle 9i RAC on Solaris

    We are installing Oracle 9iR2 RAC on Solaris 8/9. Question is what are the pros/cons of raw devices versus cooked filesystems for RAC and Oracle 9i on Solaris?

    Thanks

    Scott

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    273
    Hi mixxalot,

    I had succesfull installed 9iRAC (9.2.0.2) on Linux. I used raw devices. The drawback is increased management work. For e.g, If you add tablespace, or add datafile to an existing tablespace, you have to Update information about links, volumes to all the nodes in the Clusters. you also have to update the Scripts that activates the volumns as well as bind the raw devices to the volomes. I used to keep this script in th Startup scripts.

    When I installed 9iRAC, at that time, OCFS had some bugs for LINUX OS. So, I did not go for it. but I would go for OCFS now, b'cos, Oracle provides it without bug.
    Bhavin

    MS Computer Science
    OCP DBA 9i/8i

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    482

    Re: raw versus cooked filesystems with Oracle 9i RAC on Solaris

    Originally posted by mixxalot
    We are installing Oracle 9iR2 RAC on Solaris 8/9. Question is what are the pros/cons of raw devices versus cooked filesystems for RAC and Oracle 9i on Solaris?

    Thanks

    Scott
    I am using RAC on Solaris8 and my here is my opinions based on my experience.
    1. RAW devices is not so flexible such as cluster filesystem.
    For example if you need add datafile then you need create new row device and create symlink to it. Or you can't use standard unix commands such as cp, mv because raw device is not FS.
    2. OCFS is still buggy so i recommend to use Veritas cluster filesystem


    Look at for more informations (this is not advertisment): http://www.veritas.com/Products/www?c=product&refId=209
    http://www.veritas.com/Products/www?c=product&refId=145

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    482

    Re: raw versus cooked filesystems with Oracle 9i RAC on Solaris

    Originally posted by mixxalot
    We are installing Oracle 9iR2 RAC on Solaris 8/9. Question is what are the pros/cons of raw devices versus cooked filesystems for RAC and Oracle 9i on Solaris?

    Thanks

    Scott
    Raw devices:

    Pros
    -----

    very fast access
    great performance


    Cons
    ------

    hard to manage
    no more than 255 raw partitions
    each datafile requires its own raw partition
    hard to backup and restore



    HTH,

    clio_usa - OCP 8/8i/9i DBA

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    482

    Re: raw versus cooked filesystems with Oracle 9i RAC on Solaris

    Originally posted by clio_usa
    Raw devices:

    Pros
    -----

    very fast access
    great performance


    Cons
    ------

    hard to manage
    no more than 255 raw partitions
    each datafile requires its own raw partition
    hard to backup and restore



    HTH,

    clio_usa - OCP 8/8i/9i DBA
    great performance - huh? Don't belive everything what oracle claims... Make you own tests. Our tests says something different, so we decided to use clustered fs.

    hard to backup and restore - huh? - It's the same as work with tape... I can't see any problem... I believe tha you know "dd"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    370

    Re: raw versus cooked filesystems with Oracle 9i RAC on Solaris

    Originally posted by ika
    great performance - huh? Don't belive everything what oracle claims... Make you own tests. Our tests says something different, so we decided to use clustered fs.

    hard to backup and restore - huh? - It's the same as work with tape... I can't see any problem... I believe tha you know "dd"
    Yea, I'd agree with that.
    It used to be the case that raw devices were required for Oracle Parallel Server, but now you have a choice. They may have offered better performance in the past but storage technology has closed the gap. You don't know til you benchmark it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •