No account/password is required for *NIX access to the filer via NFS; that's all handled via the standard NFS permissions and *NIX filesystem permissions.
As to running Oracle with the data and logfiles on a filer via NFS, I should think that even with a NetApp using Gigabit Ethernet, you'd take a -huge- performance hit as compared to a local disk array. I've no empirical data to back this up, mind you; it's just that there's so much overhead associated with NFS even on an optimized platform like the NetApp filer, I can't see it as being a win.
If there's anyone out there with Oracle experience on filers via NFS, either pro or con, I'd love to hear from you.
----------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins rdobbins@netmore.net // 818.535.5024 voice
-----Original Message----- From: Jiang, Perry [mailto:Perry.Jiang@BMO.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:18 PM To: toasters Subject: NetApp questions
Hi, there
I have a question regarding NetApp Filer 740.
Oracle account
I am running a Solaris Oracle server, which is a NFS client of the NetApp Filer. Do I have to create an Oracle account on NetApp Filer and put the entry in /vol/vol0/etc/passwd? If yes, what the purpose of that? An on-line NetApp document, "Oracle for UNIX: Integrating with a NetApp Filer", stated that you need to create an Oracle account on Filer. However, according to the System Admin. Guide, /vol/vol0/etc/passwd is only for CIFS, not for NFS.
You explaination is appreciated.
Perr Jiang
As to running Oracle with the data and logfiles on a filer via NFS, I should think that even with a NetApp using Gigabit Ethernet, you'd take a -huge- performance hit as compared to a local disk array.
Beware conventional wisdom Roland. People used to think the Earth was flat too. :-)
While I wouldn't be so bold as to *guarantee* performance boosts in utilizing the filer storage approach for every database application under the Sun, the simple fact is that filers contain a myriad of features that are very attractive to the database market, and NetApp now draws a significant and growing portion of its revenues from this space.
Snapshots & SnapRestore greatly simplify and enhance database backup and restore environs. The WAFL RAID design puts failure resiliancy into the disk subsystem without forcing you take the performance hits inherent in general purpose RAID-5 designs or going to disk-doubling RAID-1 approaches. SnapMirror gives you database replication to offsite locations for disaster recovery purposes. WAFL's ready expandibility lets you make room for growing databases without disrupting their operation. The list goes on...
Oh.. and yes... performance very often gets a shot in the arm too!
I've no empirical data to back this up, mind you;
Don't worry. Nobody ever does, not even our direct-attach competitors, not that they can be too harshly criticized. Meaningful performance comparisons are tricky to architect, usually have a short shelf life, and customers have an understandable tendency not to believe vendor funded benchmarks anyway (due to the fact that the vendor performing and/or funding the benchmark almost always wins!).
Nevertheless, we did publish a relatively innocuous one some time ago, which can be viewed here:
http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3044.html
it's just that there's so much overhead associated with NFS even on an optimized platform like the NetApp filer, I can't see it as being a win.
There are certainly some "swings-and-roundabouts"-type things to consider when looking at the two approaches, and some people do conclude that there is more overhead in the network attach approach, dismissing it offhand. However, as far as performance goes, all the theory in the world is no substitute for the practical experience that could be gained by trying a solution for the application you have and actually bearing witness to how well it works and what it performs like.
If there's anyone out there with Oracle experience on filers via NFS, either pro or con, I'd love to hear from you.
I'm hoping there will be some on this list. As I mentioned, beware conventional wisdom. America might have been discovered hundreds of years before Columbus sailed over the horizon, if only all his ancestors hadn't been terrified of falling off the edge of the world!
Keith
I wonder how long it will be before netapp puts a SQL interface on top of WAFL and sells the box as an SQL appliance.
Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640
University of Virginia ITC Unix Support
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Steve Losen wrote:
I wonder how long it will be before netapp puts a SQL interface on top of WAFL and sells the box as an SQL appliance.
I wonder....at what point can we no longer call our beloved single-function appliance a toaster and must call it, say, a kitchen? ;) Hey, that'd be a cool name for a server room full of filers.
"Welcome to the Kitchen. This is where we store and prepare your data before it's delivered to your desktop."
I guess that makes me the bus-boy...
Until next time...
The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill@mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Todd C. Merrill wrote:
"Welcome to the Kitchen. This is where we store and prepare your data before it's delivered to your desktop."
I could make all sorts of comments about Netapp throwing in everything *including* the kitchen sink into the next DOT release, but I won't. ;-)
One must remember that performance is a series of leaps and bounds. Once upon a time we could most certainly say that local disk was faster than network attached storage as our heavily laden 10Mb shared networks tried to keep up. Then most of us started to move into the 100Mb switch or even FDDI. This level of performance as compared with SCSI-1 or 2 was fairly comparable. Now that we have SCSI-3, Ultra and Ultra Wide bus speeds, well 100Mb does not seem to hold up anymore. We have not installed our Gig. network yet so I cannot talk of its performance first hand. This is one the biggest reasons we, as customers, have such a hard time getting numbers that mean anything from vendors.
We have several Oracle databases on NetApp filers but they are all currently small, under 40GB. We used filers so that both Sun and NT workstations may access the data. We were running a direct attach but decided that since the controller and the filer were on the same switch the direct attach did not buy us anything.
When you buy a filer, you are buying the features not just performance. Quite often, but not always, you make a compromise of one for the other. It is each IT professionals job to make the decision about what is right for your environment.
By the way, the vikings were on the continent around 1000 A.D. They made the trek from Iceland to Newfoundland in search of food and supplies. Recent research suggest that the Norse established the site 1000 years ago, making them the first Europeans to visit North America.
-- Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans. -J. Lennon