Archive for the 'Clustered Storage' Category

Manly Men Only Deploy Oracle with Fibre Channel – Part V. What About Oracle9i on RHAS 2.1? Yippie!

Due to my Manly Man Fibre Channel Series Part I , Part II , Part III and Part IV, my email box is getting loaded with a lot of questions about various Oracle over NFS combinations. The questions run the gamut from how to best tune Oracle9i on Red Hat AS 2.1 to Oracle10g on Red Hat RHEL 3 (all on NAS/NFS of course). And then it dawned on me. When I say I’m a fan of Oracle over NFS, that is just entirely too generic.

It Ain’t Linux Unless It Is a 2.6 Kernel
Honestly folks, Red Hat 3.0-or worse yet, RHAS 2.1? Sheer madness. I’m more than convinced that there are a lot of solid RHEL 3.0 systems out there running Oracle. To those folks I’d say, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” But RHAS 2.1? That wasn’t even an operating system and to be hyper-critically honest, the “franken-kernel” that was RHEL 3.0 wasn’t really that much better, what with that hugemem 4×4 split garbage and all. SuSE SLES8 was vastly more stable than RHEL 3.0. But I digress. Look, if you are running on a pre-2.6 Kernel Linux distribution you’ve simply got to do yourself a favor and plan an upgrade! Now, back to NAS.

What Oracle on NFS?
I’ll be brief, I wouldn’t even think about using Oracle9i on NAS. I know there are a ton of databases out there doing it, but that is just me. The Oracle Server code specific to NFS (Operating System Dependent code) has gone through some serious evolution/maturation. I’ve watched the changes specifically handling NFS mature from 9i through 10g and now into 11g. Simply put, I didn’t like what I say in Oracle9i-specific to NFS that is. Oracle9i is a perfectly fine release-albeit the port to 64bit Linux was pretty scary. I guess I wasn’t that brief. So I’ll continue.

So, Oracle9i on NAS is a no-go (in my book), what about Oracle10g? There again, I’ll be brief. In my opinion, Oracle10gR1 on NAS was about as elegant as a fish flopping around on a hot sidewalk-not a pretty picture. Yes, I have my reasons why for all this stuff, but this blog entry is purely an assertion of my opinion.

Thus far, I discussed 9i and 10gR1 Linux ports. I cannot speak authoritatively about the Solaris ports of either vis a vis fitness for NFS. If I was a betting man and had two dimes to rub together I would wager them that even the Solaris releases of 9i and 10g were probably pretty shaky on NAS. That leads us to 10gR2.

Solid
Oracle10gR2 on NAS is solid-at least for Linux clients. I have seen Metalink stories about Legacy Unix ports that have RMAN problems with NFS as a near-line backup target. Again, I cannot speak for all these sundry platforms. They are good platforms, but I don’t deal with them day to day.

11g
Don’t jump the gun…tomorrow AM…

Examples
In this May 5, 2007 post on toasters, a list participant posted the following:

We are about to start testing Oracle 9i (single instance) with NetApp NAS (6070) filers. We currently have Oracle running on Solaris 9 with SAN storage attached and VERITAS.

I wouldn’t touch that project with a 10 foot pole. If that database is stable, I wouldn’t switch out the storage architecture-especially on that old of an Oracle release.

I’ve also had a thread going with Chen Shapira who has blogged about Oracle troubles on NAS. Her point throughout that blog entry, and the comments to follow, was that they’ve suffered uptime impact that never really solidly indicts to the storage, but there seems to be a lot of fingers pointed that way. Having read of the types of instability his systems have suffered, I suspected old stuff. It came out in the comment section that they are on RHEL 3.0 64-bit. Now, like I’ve said, RHEL 3.0 is carrying a lot of Oracle databases out there I know, but I wonder how many on NAS? When I say Oracle on NFS, I’m mostly saying Linux Oracle10gR2 releases on Linux 2.6 Kernels—and beyond.

I made a blog entry on this topic back in October of last year as well.

Old Operating System Releases
I take criticism (by true believers mostly) when I point out that running Oracle on a Legacy Unix release that is, say, four years old is not a reason for concern. I wish I could say the same thing about the current state of the art in the Linux world. Dating back to my first high-end Linux project (The Tens–A 10 Node, 10TB, 10,000 User Oracle9i Linux Cluster Project in 2002), I’ve been routinely reminded that Linux stands for:

(L)inux (i)s (n)ot (u)ni(x)

Now, that said, you’ll find much less dissatisfaction with Oracle in general on 2.6 Linux Kernel based systems, but in my opinion, that goes extra for NAS deployments

Standard File System Tools? We Don’t Need No Standard File System Tools!

Yesterday I posted a blog entry about copying files on Solaris. I received some side channel email on the post such as one with the following tidbit from a very good, long time friend of mine. He wrote:

So optimizing cp() is now your hobby? What’s next….. “ed”… no wait “df”.. boy it sure would be great if I could get a 20% improvement in “ls”… I am sure these commands are limiting the number of orders/hr my business can process :)))

Didn’t that blog entry show a traditional cp(1) implementation utilizing 26% less kernel mode processor cycles? Oh well.

It’s About the Whole System
While those were words spoken in jest, it warrants a blog entry and I’ll tell you why. It is true this is an Oracle related blog and such filesystem tools as cp(1) are not in the Oracle code path. I blog about these things for two reasons: 1) a lot of my readers enjoy learning more about the platform in general and 2) many—perhaps most—Oracle systems have normal file system tools such as cp(1), compress(1) and others running while Oracle is running. For that matter, the Oracle server can call out to the same libraries these tools use for such functionality as BFILE and UTL_FILE. For that reason, I feel these topics are related to Oracle platforms. After all, a garbage-can implementation of the standard filesystem tools—and/or the kernel code paths that service them—is going to take cycles away from Oracle. Now please don’t quote me as saying the mmap()-enabled Solaris cp(1) is a “garbage-can” implementation. I’m just making the point that if such tools are implemented poorly Oracle can be affected even though they are not in the scope of a transaction. It’s about the whole system.

Legacy Code. What Comes Around…Stays Around.
Let’s not think for even a moment that the internals of such tools as ls(1) and df(1) are beyond scrutiny. Both ls(1) and df(1) use the stat(2) system call. We Oracle-minded folks often forget that there is much more unstructured data than structured so it is a good thing there are still some folks like PolyServe (HP) minding the store for the performance of such mundane topics as stat(2). Why? Well, perfect examples are the online photo operations such as Snapfish. Try having thousands of threads accessing tens of millions of files (photos) for fun. See, Snapfish uses the HP Enterprise File Services Clustered Gateway NAS powered by PolyServe. You can bet we pay attention to “mundane” topics like what ls(1) behaves like in a directory with 1, 2 or 100 million small files. The stat(2) system call is extremely important in such situations.

He’s Off His Rocker—This is an Oracle Blog.
What could this possibly have to do with Oracle? Well, if you run Oracle on a platform that only specializes in the code underpinnings of the most common server I/O (e.g., db file sequential read, db file scattered read, direct path read/write, LGWR and DBWR writes), you might not end up very happy if you have to do things that hammer the filesystem with Oracle features like UTL_FILE, BFILE, external tables, imp/exp and so forth, cp(1), tar(1), compress(1) and so on. It’s all about taking a holistic view instead of “camps” that focus on segments of the I/O stack.

As the cliché goes, standard file operations and highly specialized Oracle code paths are often joined at the hip.

HP to Acquire PolyServe to Bolster NAS Offerings with Clustered Storage

You faithful readers of this blog know my position on NAS for Oracle. Clustered Storage is getting hot and HP has just stepped up to the plate by acquiring PolyServe. Here is a link to HP’s website with details:

HP To Acquire PolyServe

As you regular readers can imagine, my blogging will certainly sound a lot different going forward.


EMC Employee Disclaimer

The opinions and interests expressed on EMC employee blogs are the employees' own and do not necessarily represent EMC's positions, strategies or views. EMC makes no representation or warranties about employee blogs or the accuracy or reliability of such blogs. When you access employee blogs, even though they may contain the EMC logo and content regarding EMC products and services, employee blogs are independent of EMC and EMC does not control their content or operation. In addition, a link to a blog does not mean that EMC endorses that blog or has responsibility for its content or use.

This disclaimer was put into place on March 23, 2011.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,968 other followers

Oracle ACE Program Status

Click It

website metrics

Fond Memories

Copyright

All content is © Kevin Closson and "Kevin Closson's Blog: Platforms, Databases, and Storage", 2006-2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Closson and Kevin Closson's Blog: Platforms, Databases, and Storage with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,968 other followers