I'm going to create a 10gR2 database on a server (to be installed: SO Linux Red Hat 4.4). I will load in the database 4 terabyte of data during next months .
On next december we would like the database to be part of a three node RAC.
Now, the question is: Since I do not want to make a copy of 4 tera (cloning the database on the RAC, and I do not know how), would it be possible to make my actual node as part of the RAC without copying any data ? What can I do now on the server (to be installed as mentioned before) to put myself in the best situation for the future migration to the RAC ?
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:14:05 +0200, "Golan" <Go...@hotmail.it> wrote: >I'm going to create a 10gR2 database on a server (to be installed: SO Linux >Red Hat 4.4). >I will load in the database 4 terabyte of data during next months .
>On next december we would like the database to be part of a three node RAC.
>Now, the question is: >Since I do not want to make a copy of 4 tera (cloning the database on the >RAC, and I do not know how), would it be possible to make my actual node as >part of the RAC without copying any data ? >What can I do now on the server (to be installed as mentioned before) to put >myself in the best situation for the future migration to the RAC ?
>Thank you >Massimo
And your current datafiles are on - RAW - ASM - cooked filesystem?
In the latter case you would need to convert the datafiles to RAW (using dd or RMAN) or ASM (using RMAN). This would involve copying 4Tb. In short: yes it can be done, but forget about it if your files are not on a RAC compatible file system.
> And your current datafiles are on > - RAW > - ASM > - cooked filesystem?
> In the latter case you would need to convert the datafiles to RAW > (using dd or RMAN) or ASM (using RMAN). This would involve copying > 4Tb. > In short: yes it can be done, but forget about it if your files are > not on a RAC compatible file system.
> --
> Sybrand Bakker > Senior Oracle DBA
I have to decide what to use. So which can be the best choice ?
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:19:54 +0200, "Golan" <Go...@hotmail.it> wrote:
>> And your current datafiles are on >> - RAW >> - ASM >> - cooked filesystem?
>> In the latter case you would need to convert the datafiles to RAW >> (using dd or RMAN) or ASM (using RMAN). This would involve copying >> 4Tb. >> In short: yes it can be done, but forget about it if your files are >> not on a RAC compatible file system.
>> --
>> Sybrand Bakker >> Senior Oracle DBA
>I have to decide what to use. >So which can be the best choice ?
>Thank you very much.
What was unclear about my response? Did you read it, at all? You didn't respond to my question. I was referring to your current database. If your current database doesn't reside on a RAC compatible filesystem, you would need to move all your datafiles to a RAC compatible filesystem, and your 'trick' won't work. All things being equal, RAW is inflexible, and ASM is preferred.
> >> And your current datafiles are on > >> - RAW > >> - ASM > >> - cooked filesystem?
> >> In the latter case you would need to convert the datafiles to RAW > >> (using dd or RMAN) or ASM (using RMAN). This would involve copying > >> 4Tb. > >> In short: yes it can be done, but forget about it if your files are > >> not on a RAC compatible file system.
> >> --
> >> Sybrand Bakker > >> Senior Oracle DBA
> >I have to decide what to use. > >So which can be the best choice ?
> >Thank you very much.
> What was unclear about my response? > Did you read it, at all? > You didn't respond to my question. > I was referring to your current database. If your current database > doesn't reside on a RAC compatible filesystem, you would need to move > all your datafiles to a RAC compatible filesystem, and your 'trick' > won't work. > All things being equal, RAW is inflexible, and ASM is preferred.
> -- > Sybrand Bakker > Senior Oracle DBA
Guess it may be time for the BAARF gang to publish the "You probably don't need ASM" article.
Golan wrote: > I'm going to create a 10gR2 database on a server (to be installed: SO Linux > Red Hat 4.4). > I will load in the database 4 terabyte of data during next months .
> On next december we would like the database to be part of a three node RAC.
> Now, the question is: > Since I do not want to make a copy of 4 tera (cloning the database on the > RAC, and I do not know how), would it be possible to make my actual node as > part of the RAC without copying any data ? > What can I do now on the server (to be installed as mentioned before) to put > myself in the best situation for the future migration to the RAC ?
> Thank you > Massimo
Almost undoubtedly not. The storage requirements for RAC are very specific: ASM or NetApp's CFS, or an OCFS, or RAW. Likely you have none of the above.
So you will undoubtedly need to move the 4TB. But I would strongly urge you to take a decent RAC class before touching anything if your intention is to avoid redoing it again later. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:10:08 -0700, hpuxrac wrote: > Guess it may be time for the BAARF gang to publish the "You probably > don't need ASM" article.
Actually, BAARF gang fell asleep. If you want to learn what is ASM and why you don't need it, I recommend Kevin Closson and his blog. Kevin used to work for Sequent then went to company called Polyserve, recently acquired by HP. Kevin is the guy whose knowledge of Oracle, storage, clusters and Linux kernel is immense. His blog can be found at: http://kevinclosson.wordpress.com
>> Guess it may be time for the BAARF gang to publish the "You probably >> don't need ASM" article.
> Actually, BAARF gang fell asleep. If you want to learn what is ASM and > why you don't need it, I recommend Kevin Closson and his blog. Kevin used > to work for Sequent then went to company called Polyserve, recently > acquired by HP. Kevin is the guy whose knowledge of Oracle, storage, > clusters and Linux kernel is immense. His blog can be found at: > http://kevinclosson.wordpress.com
ASM is a license requiremen for the implementation of RAC with Standard Edition.
Telling people they probably don't need it might lead some to violate their license. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
> What was unclear about my response? > Did you read it, at all? > You didn't respond to my question. > I was referring to your current database. If your current database > doesn't reside on a RAC compatible filesystem, you would need to move > all your datafiles to a RAC compatible filesystem, and your 'trick' > won't work. > All things being equal, RAW is inflexible, and ASM is preferred.
> -- > Sybrand Bakker > Senior Oracle DBA
Excuse Sybrand, I was not so clear in the main question:
We have a 9i database on a server, we decided to create a new one 10g on the new server, recreating the main objects and transferring historical data with a db link. Now we want to make all possible actions, to make the new server "raccable" without duplicating data, and with the less effort possible.
Asm can give us just balancing becouse redundancy is guaranted by the raid configuration on the storage.
> Excuse Sybrand, I was not so clear in the main question:
> We have a 9i database on a server, we decided to create a new one 10g on the > new server, recreating the main objects and transferring historical data > with a db link. > Now we want to make all possible actions, to make the new server "raccable" > without duplicating data, and with the less effort possible.
> Asm can give us just balancing becouse redundancy is guaranted by the raid > configuration on the storage.
> Massimo
The 10g server does not exist yet, I have to choose everything. I want to make a Rac in the future (next year) using this server as a node of the RAC.
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:10:15 +0200, "Golan" <Go...@hotmail.it> wrote: >Excuse Sybrand, I was not so clear in the main question:
>We have a 9i database on a server, we decided to create a new one 10g on the >new server, recreating the main objects and transferring historical data >with a db link. >Now we want to make all possible actions, to make the new server "raccable" >without duplicating data, and with the less effort possible.
So this wasn't a serious question after all. First of all you still didn't answer my question whether your data on the existing database is on RAW. Probably because you don't know the answer. However, the question has become irrelevant, because obviously you can't a 9i (potentially cooked) database with 10g RAC as the database format has changed. At it's best you would need to upgrade the existing server to 10g (non-RAC) and use RMAN to duplicate your database to the cluster. And yes, that means moving 4 Terabyte
>Asm can give us just balancing becouse redundancy is guaranted by the raid >configuration on the storage.
Your understanding of ASM is very limited. The main advantage of ASM is you can use ordinary files again.
>Massimo
I would recommend you stop wasting people's time by withhelding relevant details.
> Your understanding of ASM is very limited. The main advantage of ASM > is you can use ordinary files again.
This is not a main advantage for me.
> >Massimo
> I would recommend you stop wasting people's time by withhelding > relevant details.
I think:
... I'm going to create a 10gR2 database on a server (to be installed: SO Linux Red Hat 4.4). I will load in the database 4 terabyte of data during next months . On next december we would like the database to be part of a three node RAC. ...
Golan wrote: >> Excuse Sybrand, I was not so clear in the main question:
>> We have a 9i database on a server, we decided to create a new one 10g on > the >> new server, recreating the main objects and transferring historical data >> with a db link. >> Now we want to make all possible actions, to make the new server > "raccable" >> without duplicating data, and with the less effort possible.
>> Asm can give us just balancing becouse redundancy is guaranted by the raid >> configuration on the storage.
>> Massimo
> The 10g server does not exist yet, I have to choose everything. > I want to make a Rac in the future (next year) using this server as a node > of the RAC.
Sybrand's advice is still good. If you are planning to go RAC then it makes sense to choose a storage medium that is compatible with RAC from the outset. There are a number of these now - RAW and ASM have both already been mentioned, in addition there are a number of NFS based solutions that are compatible and most likely Oracle's own cluster file system will be available to you as well.
I would, however, strongly query whether moving to RAC will actually happen. It sounds to me like a possible plan for later, rather than a firm intent - I maybe misreading you. Choosing more expensive, or more complicated, storage because you may do something at a later date seems a little foolish to me. Similarly if you are going to go RAC for sure it would likely make sense to do it at the start of the project, when you have the downtime and testing associated with an upgrade project anyway, rather than later when you will likely have to repeat most of the work, but on a now live system.
> Sybrand's advice is still good. If you are planning to go RAC then it > makes sense to choose a storage medium that is compatible with RAC from > the outset. There are a number of these now - RAW and ASM have both > already been mentioned, in addition there are a number of NFS based > solutions that are compatible and most likely Oracle's own cluster file > system will be available to you as well.
> I would, however, strongly query whether moving to RAC will actually > happen. It sounds to me like a possible plan for later, rather than a > firm intent - I maybe misreading you. Choosing more expensive, or more > complicated, storage because you may do something at a later date seems > a little foolish to me. Similarly if you are going to go RAC for sure it > would likely make sense to do it at the start of the project, when you > have the downtime and testing associated with an upgrade project anyway, > rather than later when you will likely have to repeat most of the work, > but on a now live system.
Nial thanx for the answer. We are not expert in linux/unix environment and file systems. We followed this article to build a RAC: http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/chan-ubl-vmware.html and we were going to believe that we should use ocfs2 file system and then must format the new file system. Using RAW or ASM for the standalone will let us avoid (clustering) to create other file systems and copy original database. Bye
Golan wrote: >> Sybrand's advice is still good. If you are planning to go RAC then it >> makes sense to choose a storage medium that is compatible with RAC from >> the outset. There are a number of these now - RAW and ASM have both >> already been mentioned, in addition there are a number of NFS based >> solutions that are compatible and most likely Oracle's own cluster file >> system will be available to you as well.
>> I would, however, strongly query whether moving to RAC will actually >> happen. It sounds to me like a possible plan for later, rather than a >> firm intent - I maybe misreading you. Choosing more expensive, or more >> complicated, storage because you may do something at a later date seems >> a little foolish to me. Similarly if you are going to go RAC for sure it >> would likely make sense to do it at the start of the project, when you >> have the downtime and testing associated with an upgrade project anyway, >> rather than later when you will likely have to repeat most of the work, >> but on a now live system.
> Nial thanx for the answer. > We are not expert in linux/unix environment and file systems. > We followed this article to build a RAC: > http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/chan-ubl-vmware.html > and we were going to believe that we should use ocfs2 file system and then > must format the new file system. > Using RAW or ASM for the standalone will let us avoid (clustering) to create > other file systems and copy original database. > Bye
> Golan
Be careful using VMWare. It isn't fully supported by Oracle. If you have a problem don't be surprised if they ask you to duplicate it in a non-virtual environment before they offer any help. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
Mladen Gogala wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:02:27 -0700, DA Morgan wrote:
>> ASM is a license requiremen for the implementation of RAC with Standard >> Edition.
>> Telling people they probably don't need it might lead some to violate >> their license.
> That is true, but the people running RAC with standard edition definitely > do not need RAC.
I completely disagree. Why this attitude from both you, and to some extent Oracle, that people using SE don't need high availability? Is this some kind of anti-SE prejudice? You don't need MAA unless you have deep pockets?
Just because someone doesn't need the full feature set of EE does not mean they don't need to eliminate the server as a single point of failure (or a DR site).
I know a number of organizations that use SE RAC clusters to support their Grid Control OMR. Can you think of a single reason why they would want to go to EE? A single reason why they wouldn't want to invest a bit of effort in making sure the Grid is always up?
I sure can't. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
> Mladen Gogala wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:02:27 -0700, DA Morgan wrote:
> >> ASM is a license requiremen for the implementation of RAC with Standard > >> Edition.
> >> Telling people they probably don't need it might lead some to violate > >> their license.
> > That is true, but the people running RAC with standard edition definitely > > do not need RAC.
> I completely disagree. Why this attitude from both you, and to some > extent Oracle, that people using SE don't need high availability? Is > this some kind of anti-SE prejudice? You don't need MAA unless you > have deep pockets?
> Just because someone doesn't need the full feature set of EE does > not mean they don't need to eliminate the server as a single point > of failure (or a DR site).
> I know a number of organizations that use SE RAC clusters to support > their Grid Control OMR. Can you think of a single reason why they > would want to go to EE? A single reason why they wouldn't want to > invest a bit of effort in making sure the Grid is always up?
> I sure can't. > -- > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damor...@x.washington.edu > (replace x with u to respond) > Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
I agree with Daniel, i'm working for a ISV, we can ask our clients to buy EE licenses, we sometimes offer RAC with standard edition, only two nodes, we have never experimented really high avalability, when we hava had problems was with database itself and Oracle bugs, not with a single machine failure. But i think that same would have appened if we was using Enterprise Editition two nodes RAC, but having spent the triple of money of Oracle licenses. We have a customer with 400 users, we have no tests of single instance, but another customer with 9iR2 RAC on AIX (so EE) with hardware three years older have had performance problems, also with EE. So i think that RAC with Standard Edition may be an interesting solution.
> > Actually, BAARF gang fell asleep. If you want to learn what is ASM and > > why you don't need it,
> ASM is a license requiremen for the implementation of RAC with Standard > Edition.
> Telling people they probably don't need it might lead some to violate > their license.
There are still people that are unaware that ASM doesn't work for anything except for database files. I don't tell people they don't need ASM as much as I remind people they will still need raw or CFS for clusterware files and filesystems for all the other stuff. What I do suggest is that you choose a storage type that satisfies 100% of all your database needs and go with it. It turns out that the only storage type that fits the bill across all Unix variants (including Linux) is NFS as served up by a NAS device.
If you choose SE you can still use ASM on NFS...I think think being forced to do so is weird, but at least you would have 100% of your file needs covered with that approach as well. I think the following captures my point:
> I completely disagree. Why this attitude from both you, and to some > extent Oracle, that people using SE don't need high availability? Is > this some kind of anti-SE prejudice? You don't need MAA unless you > have deep pockets?
pdxkev...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Actually, BAARF gang fell asleep. If you want to learn what is ASM and >>> why you don't need it, >> ASM is a license requiremen for the implementation of RAC with Standard >> Edition.
>> Telling people they probably don't need it might lead some to violate >> their license.
> There are still people that are unaware that ASM doesn't work for > anything except for database files. I don't tell people they don't > need ASM as much as I remind people they will still need raw or CFS > for clusterware files and filesystems for all the other stuff. What I > do suggest is that you choose a storage type that satisfies 100% of > all your database needs and go with it. It turns out that the only > storage type that fits the bill across all Unix variants (including > Linux) is NFS as served up by a NAS device.
I agree and no doubt NetApp would agree as they are the only approved source for the CFS.
I agree and no doubt NetApp would agree as they are the only approved source for the CFS.
Some people, however, have EMC, LSI, Fujitsu, Hitachi, etc. and do not have that option.
> If you choose SE you can still use ASM on NFS...
Please post a link about this? -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
> I agree and no doubt NetApp would agree as they are the only approved > source for the CFS.
Oracle over NFS is not a NetApp special. There are several vendors that have been tested through the (now decommissioned) Oracle Storage Compatibility Program (EMC, Fujitsu, HP, Bluarc to name a few)
> > If you choose SE you can still use ASM on NFS...
> Please post a link about this?
ASM is supported using files as "disks" so long as the files are on an NFS mount. Link?
pdxkev...@gmail.com wrote: >> I agree and no doubt NetApp would agree as they are the only approved >> source for the CFS.
> Oracle over NFS is not a NetApp special. There are several vendors > that have been tested through the (now decommissioned) Oracle Storage > Compatibility Program (EMC, Fujitsu, HP, Bluarc to name a few)
>>> If you choose SE you can still use ASM on NFS... >> Please post a link about this?
> ASM is supported using files as "disks" so long as the files are on an > NFS mount. Link?
And the performance will be glacial: I've done it.
My question was do you have a link showing this in the Oracle docs and showing that it is supported? -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
> -- > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damor...@x.washington.edu > (replace x with u to respond) > Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
|
