Was wondering if anyone has had any performance issues with Oracle running on ZFS as compared to UFS? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100213/c64c6a63/attachment.html>
On Feb 13, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Tony MacDoodle wrote:> Was wondering if anyone has had any performance issues with Oracle running on ZFS as compared to UFS?The ZFS for Databases wiki is the place to collect information and advice for database on ZFS. http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_for_Databases I notice that it is missing some later research results and will try to update it over the next few days. ZFS can perform better or worse than UFS. Follow the recommendations for configuration with your database to avoid wasting time rediscovering the new world :-) -- richard
Using ZFS for Oracle can be configured to deliver very good performance.
Depending on what your priorities are in terms of critical metrics, keep
in mind
that the most performant solution is to use Oracle ASM on raw disk devices.
That is not intended to imply anything negative about ZFS or UFS. The simple
fact is that when you but your Oracle datafiles on any file system,
there''s a much
longer code path involved in reading and writing files, along with the
file systems
use of memory that needs to be considered. ZFS offers enterprise-class
features
(the admin model, snapshots, etc) that make it a great choice to deploy in
production, but, from a pure performance point-of-view, it''s not going
to be
the absolute fastest. Configured correctly, it can meet or exceed
performance
requirements.
For Oracle, you need to;
- Make sure you''re the latest Solaris 10 update release (update 8).
- For the datafiles, set the recordsize to align with the db_block_size (8k)
- Put the redo logs on a seperate zpool, with the default 128k recordsize
- Disable ZFS data caching (primarycache=metadata). Let Oracle cache the
data
in the SGA.
- Watch your space in your zpools - don''t run them at 90% full.
Read the link Richard sent for some additional information.
Thanks,
/jim
Tony MacDoodle wrote:> Was wondering if anyone has had any performance issues with Oracle
> running on ZFS as compared to UFS?
>
> Thanks
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jim Mauro <James.Mauro at sun.com> wrote:> Using ZFS for Oracle can be configured to deliver very good performance. > Depending on what your priorities are in terms of critical metrics, keep in > mind > that the most performant solution is to use Oracle ASM on raw disk devices. > That is not intended to imply anything negative about ZFS or UFS. The simple > fact is that when you but your Oracle datafiles on any file system, there''s > a much > longer code path involved in reading and writing files, along with the file > systems > use of memory that needs to be considered. ZFS offers enterprise-class > features > (the admin model, snapshots, etc) that make it a great choice to deploy in > production, but, from a pure performance point-of-view, it''s not going to be > the absolute fastest. Configured correctly, it can meet or exceed > performance > requirements. > > For Oracle, you need to; > - Make sure you''re the latest Solaris 10 update release (update 8). > - For the datafiles, set the recordsize to align with the db_block_size (8k) > - Put the redo logs on a seperate zpool, with the default 128k recordsize > - Disable ZFS data caching (primarycache=metadata). Let Oracle cache the > data > ? in the SGA. > - Watch your space in your zpools - don''t run them at 90% full. > > Read the link Richard sent for some additional information.There is of course the caveat of using raw devices with databases (it becomes harder to track usage, especially as the number of LUNs increases, slightly less visibility into their usage statistics at the OS level ). However perhaps now someone can implement the CR I filed a long time ago to add ASM support to libfstyp.so that would allow zfs, mkfs, format, etc. to identify ASM volumes =)> > Thanks, > /jim > > > Tony MacDoodle wrote: >> >> Was wondering if anyone has had any performance issues with Oracle running >> on ZFS as compared to UFS? >> >> Thanks >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >