Greetings,
I spent about 3+ days trying to get ASE & NetApp Filer to work properly. The platform I used was a Dual PIII 450 [1GB RAM] running Linux [RedHat 6.2] with 2.2.14 kernel and ASE 11.9.2.2 ESD #2 [EBF #8944]. The system has 2 Intel EtherExpress 10/100 cards. The NetApp Filer is a F720. I setup a direct network connection between the Linux server and the NetApp Filer [running 100 Base-T w/Full Duplex].
First of all I have to say the instructions located at http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3040.html were only tested on Solaris and not any other flavor or UNIX. Some of the NFS options were different or did not exist under Linux so it took me a while to get that done. Basically you need to have the "lockd" [NFS Lock Daemon] running and also use the "nolock" option for the NFS mount in order to make it work. After that I learned that you can only create the devices under the mount point [i.e. if your mount point is "/sybase" your devices must be "/sybase/<device>] or it will fail. Again none of this was located in the documentation.
The creation of the server and devices was a lot better than creating file(s) on a RAID filesystem but about the same with using "partitions" on a RAID drive [with no filesystem]. Since ASE uses O_SYNC option [wait until the O.S. have verified your write before going forward] for filesystem files it ensure [to a point] that corruption of the database is minimized. However Sybase says that using filesystem files is still not a solution until ASE 12.0 [read below].
I had a working production database using this server and decided to do a little experiment. I did a backup of my database and then did a "reboot" of my system without shutting down Sybase. When the system came back up I tried to restart ASE but found out that the "sysusages" information for my database was corrupted. Working with Sybase I tried everything possible but had to drop/re-create my database from scratch. I called and informed NetApp of my problems and asked them to investigate it. It has been over 7 business days and I have not heard any further information from them.
All in all I do not believe that using filesystem files is a solution for ASE on any platform. With ASE 12.0 they now switch to D_SYNC [wait until the write has been comitted to the file before continuing on] for filesystem files. This of course will make using filesystem files more of an option *but* it will also slow things down [you won't take the OS at it's word anymore] since you will guarantee that data will be written to your filesystem devices.
Until NetApp can prove to me that their solution is faster than locally attached RAID using "partitions"/"raw I/O" [raw I/O is part of Linux 2.4.X kernel and probably ASE 12.5 for Linux] where we can do asynchronous read/write [filesystem will *always* be synchronous] I would not recommend it to anyone.
Yours,
Shahryar
Until NetApp can prove to me that their solution is faster than locally attached RAID using "partitions"/"raw I/O" [raw I/O is part of Linux 2.4.X kernel and probably ASE 12.5 for Linux] where we can do asynchronous read/write [filesystem will *always* be synchronous] I would not recommend
it
to anyone.
Since you're fond of testing, why don't you test this yourself? Synchronous over NFS may very well be faster than raw partitions, but it depends on your particular load. You would need to test it yourself to determine... Netapp can't "prove" it to you.
Bruce
Why should it be faster than locally attached RAID? It seems to me that this is a trade-off where you live with a little less performance in trade for centralizing storage on already existing NetApp filers thus saving money on having to buy fairly expensive local storage and having to administrate yet another storage area.
The question this raises with me is- I wonder if going to Gigabit between the devices negates the speed issue.
Derek Kelly
----- Original Message ----- From: Shahryar G. Hashemi shahryar@n2h2.com To: toasters@mathworks.com Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2000 5:26 PM Subject: Sybase ASE & NetApp Filer [My Experiences].....
Until NetApp can prove to me that their solution is faster than locally attached RAID using "partitions"/"raw I/O" [raw I/O is part of Linux 2.4.X kernel and probably ASE 12.5 for Linux] where we can do asynchronous read/write [filesystem will *always* be synchronous] I would not recommend
it
to anyone.
Why should it be faster than locally attached RAID?
Netapp filers are often faster than locally attached RAID. Is it black magic? Or just good coding? Regardless, it's true. You're right that the ease of centralized storage is worth a small performance hit, but often data moved from local disk to a filer sees a performance gain.
Gigabit definitely helps, especially if you need all that bandwidth.
Bruce