I would like to get some feedback on the overall perception on the support and stability of OCFS2 (latest). This tool looks like a perfect fit for a production system I am planning, but, due to it's open source roots, there are some concerns about s&s. The app will be deemed mission critical with very little tolerance for any downtime (24x365). Thanks. M. Austin Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20100524/fbd13fe9/attachment.html
OCFS2 is developed and maintained by Oracle exactly for that purpose. If you use OCFS2 for Oracle database storage, full support is included with your database support license. If you use OCFS2 as a general purpose filesystem, you can get enterprise level support from Oracle through the Unbreakable Linux support program. Thanks, Herbert. On 05/24/2010 10:32 AM, Michael Austin wrote:> I would like to get some feedback on the overall perception on the > support and stability of OCFS2 (latest). This tool looks like a perfect > fit for a production system I am planning, but, due to it's open source > roots, there are some concerns about s&s. The app will be deemed > mission critical with very little tolerance for any downtime (24x365). > > Thanks. > > M. Austin > Consultant > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-users mailing list > Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
What do you mean about "due to it's open source roots"? Anyway, our OCFS2 deployment is running stable since our latest changes in our structure (5+ months ago). We are using Novel SuSE SLES 10SP3 and use OCFS2 as general propose file system. Enterprise support can be provided by Oracle or Novel. Em Mon, 24 May 2010 13:32:47 -0400 Michael Austin <onedbguru at gmail.com> escreveu:> I would like to get some feedback on the overall perception on the > support and stability of OCFS2 (latest). This tool looks like a > perfect fit for a production system I am planning, but, due to it's > open source roots, there are some concerns about s&s. The app will > be deemed mission critical with very little tolerance for any > downtime (24x365). > > Thanks. > > M. Austin > ConsultantRegards, -- .:''''':. .:' ` S?rgio Surkamp | Gerente de Rede :: ........ sergio at gruposinternet.com.br `:. .:' `:, ,.:' *Grupos Internet S.A.* `: :' R. Lauro Linhares, 2123 Torre B - Sala 201 : : Trindade - Florian?polis - SC :.' :: +55 48 3234-4109 : ' http://www.gruposinternet.com.br
Michael Austin <onedbguru at gmail.com> 2010-05-24 13:32:> I would like to get some feedback on the overall perception on the support > and stability of OCFS2 (latest).? This tool looks like a perfect fit for > a production system I am planning, but, due to it's open source roots, > there are some concerns about s&s.? The app will be deemed mission > critical with very little tolerance for any downtime (24x365).? > > Thanks. > > M. Austin > ConsultantIt pains me to, but I can't say I'd recommend it for something like a mail setup that has heavy write of tiny files. There's a fragmentation issue that burned us bad recently and before that a locking issue (search the archives). Even then I have to say that the Oracle devs were responsive to us even without a service contract, for which I'm very grateful. You might have better luck with a "supported" distro. I've always used mainline kernels with Debian. That said, I had been using an earlier version for a web server backend (couple of TB, mostly read) and a video streaming library (_many_ TB and _lots_ of read traffic) for a long time without any reports of problems. I don't work there anymore, but from what I hear everything's still humming along without interruption (that should be read overall cluster interruption) for almost 3 years now. That even with crummy server rooms that try bake their inhabitants from time to time :) I will also say just off hand that OCFS2 is still the best OSS shared disk cluster fs I've tried. I've tested GFS2 off and on for a couple of years and it still has a rather trivial deadlock case: # cssh node1 node2 node3 # mkdir /cluster/$HOSTNAME # touch /cluster/$HOSTNAME/test # rm -rf /cluster/* Cheers, Brian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-users/attachments/20100524/469b35b7/attachment.bin
Hi All, Firstly, I want to say that I very much appreciate all the time that the Oracle devs have spent on ocfs2 and responding to issues on the mailing list. They are always quite prompt and responding to issues on the mailing list which I'm personally grateful for. On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:32:47 -0400 Michael Austin <onedbguru at gmail.com> wrote:> I would like to get some feedback on the overall perception on the > support and stability of OCFS2 (latest). This tool looks like a > perfect fit for a production system I am planning, but, due to it's > open source roots, there are some concerns about s&s. The app will > be deemed mission critical with very little tolerance for any > downtime (24x365).As Brian Kroth mentioned, the disk free fragmentation issue can really bite you. My understanding is that if the FS is created with ocfs2-tools 1.4.4 (the latest release), then you shouldn't hit the issue. I've created a new FS on our dev platform to test it, but I'm currently adding the "time" ingredient. I don't like saying it, but I've had some pretty major issues with stability when the nodes are under heavy load (both disk and cpu). I had a web app that was reading writing cache data to/from the ocfs2 FS and that seemed to trigger node trace-less crashes/reboots after a hour or so. I was able to reproduce this with any vanilla kernel in the 2.6.27-2.6.32 range. I haven't tried 2.6.33 or 2.6.34, but I'm not aware of any fixes. I also found with 2.6.32, killing one node would result in a BUG() on the other node during the recovery. This didn't happen with 2.6.30 and before (not sure about 2.6.31). See my bz here: http://oss.oracle.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1221 On the positive side though, I do find that using centos 5 (and the rpms from oss.oracle.com) seemed to be rock solid. The only time that I've had a centos 5 kernel crash is when I've also been mounting the FS with a mainline (2.6.27-2.6.32) kernel. If the mainline kernel crashed, the centos kernel would *sometimes* also go down. The setup hasn't faulted since only using centos 5 kernels (maybe because they don't crash in the first place!). I think ocfs2 is a great product that is very easy to use (compared to GFS for example which requires you to configure fencing). My recommendation would be to stick with centos 5 and do some heavy (for 24+ hours) testing before deployment. Cheers, Brad