Re: Prod 18c on ACFS

Yes, Oracle pushing ACFS is one of the main reason we thinking on switching to it, apart for the snap ability for PDBs, but I'm worried about how will OS cope with only one filesystem for that many DBs if we use the ODA DG distribution (1 Data mountpoints for each DB, 1 shared for recording/redo between all DBs).

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, 15:48 Michael McMullen <ganstadba_at_hotmail.com wrote:

> I will verify that 12.2 ODA now creates databases as ASM as the default.
> We went to 12.2 as a patch bundle. You need to add the -acfs flag to the
> oakcli create database for acfs. The problem is that the ODA deployment was
> configured for ACFS so there was actually very little ASM space available
> for pure ASM databases.
> I would have thought Oracle would keep ACFS as the default as they seem to
> be pushing everything to ACFS.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org> on
> behalf of Ricard Martinez <ricard.martinez_at_gmail.com>
> *Sent:* November 19, 2018 11:36 AM
> *To:* Seth Miller
> *Cc:* Oracle-L Freelists
> *Subject:* Re: Prod 18c on ACFS
>
> Thanks, as far I been reading on the 12.1/12.2 ODA config docs seems they
> give you the option to create DB on ASM or ACFS now, instead of ACFS as in
> 11. That makes me wonder if it is because users demanded it or other
> reasons. Anyone with ODA can verify?
>
> On 19 Nov 2018 16:01, "Seth Miller" <sethmiller.sm_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ricard,
>
> It might be worth getting in touch with the ODA team since the ODA uses
> ACFS by default. I'm sure they must have done some testing in the area
> already.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:13 AM Ricard Martinez <ricard.martinez_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> In our 12.1c RAC clusters we define 3 Diskgroups (data/fra/redo) on ASM
> that have up to 100 DB on them (noncdb). This been working fine for us, but
> with 18c we thought about using ACFS in order to be able to use snapshots,
> etc. If we keep the same DG structure we will end with 3 mountpoints for
> each DB, meaning we will have over 300 mountpoints on the nodes. Not a good
> call on my experience as cluster takes ages to stop/start that many acfs.
> We can use 1 for data for each DB and a global one for fra/redo, but not
> sure if acfs will be happy with 100 dB writing to only one volume. Of
> course there is also the I/O impact on going to ACFS, meaning we will lose
> around 3% based in our tests. Is anyway running a similar environment using
> ACFS? Even if not, but you have some insight will be appreciated.
>
> Regards
>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l