Re: Rac on Linux

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:26:22 -0700
Message-ID: <1158161176.49465@bubbleator.drizzle.com>

Brian Peasland wrote:

>> OFCS is
>> marked for obsolescence and you really don't want to bring some
>> third-party volume management vendor into the mix unless you enjoy
>> finger-pointing exercises.

>
> This is not a discourse on which is better, OCFS or ASM. But I do
> challenge the notion that OCFS is dead or dying. It may be dead from
> Oracle's development and support point of view, but that is because they
> have shipped OCFS 2 to the Linux community:
>
> http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/117697.htm
> http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-04-2006/0004333067&EDATE=
>
>
> So OCFS will live on in some form or another.
>
> Cheers,
> Brian

OCFS is open source and it is not Oracle's to control.

But for someone to adopt a technology that Oracle has lost interest in is a guarantee of support issues moving forward.

If everything is working perfectly you can adopt any technology you wish: Even DOS 3.1. My thought here is that when things don't ... and that is Murphy's Law ... then you want to be in a position to open an SR and get what you need when you need it. It appears that OCFS is not going to provide that in the future and why adopt it now.

This is not much different from my work with Oracle on Apple's OSX. It is still, based on benchmarking, a superior operating system. And I would have never touched it had I not received assurances from both Apple and Oracle that it would be supported. When it became apparent that Apple was backing out of their committment ... I walked away ... and shut the door. That's how I feel about someone considering OCFS today. The difference is that I can't find anyone at Oracle willing to say it isn't a dead-end.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
University of Washington
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group

Received on Wed Sep 13 2006 - 10:26:22 CDT