Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GFS, OCFS, and GPFS - Which Filesystem for Oracle?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the proper-care-and-feeding-of-a-high-octane-RDBMS dept.

amani asks: "My company has a Oracle 9i RAC database running on a Sun cluster. In 6 months we are looking to replace the cluster with either a Linux or an AIX solution that will involve SAN storage. I see that their are a variety of filesystems for Oracle and Linux. Sistina (Red Hat) has the GFS, Oracle has the OCFS, and IBM has GPFS. Does anyone know the pros and cons of each of these filesystems ,and which one would be better for a continuously growing database?"

3 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. VCS is the way to go by Androclese · · Score: 3, Informative

    Have you looked at a Veritas Cluster? (VCS) The company I work for uses it and we have found it to be very stable.

  2. ask us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um.. perhaps call your Oracle support people. If your company is at all sizable, they probably have support contracts with the companies that provide them their mission-critical software? And their professional services/technical engineering people would surely be the best people to ask.

  3. Re:Why bother... none of those are worth using. by zem_11 · · Score: 2, Informative

    What about Lustre (http://www.lustre.org)?

    BTW, implicitly, closed != bad. Yes, sometimes it does, but not always.

    Also, by what definition is a filesystem a "cluster filesystem". One in which the cluster nodes can (a) access, (b) provide or (c) access and provide the filesystem? Not every flavour of clustered filesystem falls in the same category.

    I do agree with the license comment on closed source systems - the per-node license fees are ridiculous.