Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
ACFS vs OCFS
851 views
Skip to first unread message
Mladen Gogala
Jan 9, 2013, 2:43:04 PM1/9/13
to
I've been reading about both file systems. The problem with ACFS is that
it isn't open source file system so I cannot say for sure, but it appears
that ACFS is very similar to OCFS, only it uses the services of the
underlying volume manager (ASM) instead of OCFS which starts its own lock
manager. Extents and directory structure looks remarkably similar to me,
based on what little I was able to find on the Metalink. Does anybody
have any other information?
--
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
it isn't open source file system so I cannot say for sure, but it appears
that ACFS is very similar to OCFS, only it uses the services of the
underlying volume manager (ASM) instead of OCFS which starts its own lock
manager. Extents and directory structure looks remarkably similar to me,
based on what little I was able to find on the Metalink. Does anybody
have any other information?
--
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
Mladen Gogala
Jan 10, 2013, 10:21:48 AM1/10/13
to
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:43:04 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> I've been reading about both file systems. The problem with ACFS is that
> it isn't open source file system so I cannot say for sure, but it
> appears that ACFS is very similar to OCFS, only it uses the services of
> the underlying volume manager (ASM) instead of OCFS which starts its own
> lock manager. Extents and directory structure looks remarkably similar
> to me, based on what little I was able to find on the Metalink. Does
> anybody have any other information?
Well, I haven't been reading enough. It is not possible to keep database
> I've been reading about both file systems. The problem with ACFS is that
> it isn't open source file system so I cannot say for sure, but it
> appears that ACFS is very similar to OCFS, only it uses the services of
> the underlying volume manager (ASM) instead of OCFS which starts its own
> lock manager. Extents and directory structure looks remarkably similar
> to me, based on what little I was able to find on the Metalink. Does
> anybody have any other information?
files on ACFS. Also, it's a different beast from OCFS. The idea was to
maintain a backup, that I can switch to using RMAN and backup that backup
to tape for safekeeping. The database is two node RAC on 64 bit Red Hat
Linux 6.3 with the data files in ASM diskgroups. I was hoping to get by
without installing OCFS2 because OCFS, in contrast with ACFS cannot be
resized. If the database grows, system admin would have to add new space
to the logical volume and reformat it using mkfs. ACFS can be re-sized
and it doesn't require a new installation.
However, Oracle responded: it is not possible to keep database files on
ACFS. Bummer.
Jan
Jan 10, 2013, 2:36:53 PM1/10/13
to
Mladen Gogala
Jan 14, 2013, 6:54:32 AM1/14/13
to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:36:53 -0800, Jan wrote:
> You can resize ocfs2, google for it
Thanks. I found it. I haven't used it in a while. OCFS is not getting much
> You can resize ocfs2, google for it
attention, with the advent of ASM which also boasts advanced capabilities
like snapshots.
--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
emi2...@gmail.com
Jan 11, 2014, 2:58:00 PM1/11/14
to
Mladen Gogala
Jan 12, 2014, 12:06:14 AM1/12/14
to
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:58:00 -0800, emi2fast wrote:
> where did you see you cannot resize acfs?
I don't understand? In the post you're quoting I'm specifically saying
> where did you see you cannot resize acfs?
that ACFS can be resized. I don't understand the question?
0 new messages