Hello,
We have 6 servers hitting our NetApp 760 with about 25 instances. Love love love the filer.
I have not seen a problem with the database even if the network goes down for some time (20 minutes and more).
The only hiccup I have seen is if the filer is rebooted while databases are operating. A control file that is located on the filer may have a lock held against it when it comes back up. We run 1 filer and 2 local control files. If that happens, delete the filer based control file and replace it with a copy from the local set. Then your database will restart.
Cheers,
Joe
At 09:35 AM 8/20/02 -0400, Brian Long wrote:
- How does performance really stack up compared with a DAS or SAN
solution? Does the IP stack -vs- SCSI stack cause a significant performance lag?
Robin,
It all depends on which Unix platform you run Oracle. Solaris' NFS client in any release before Solaris 9 has a huge bug that slows down performance. Try exporting a filesystem on your Solaris host and mounting localhost:/filesystem. Then try some benchmarks...they stink. As I understand it, the HP-UX nfs client does not have these issues and performs well with NAS.
- Are there compelling reasons why this would be a preferred solution?
Netapp features: instant snapshot, snapmirror, snaprestore. These features are critical in an Oracle (and Clearcase) implementation.
Are there compelling reasons why this solution should be avoided?
What are the gotchas of such a solution? Are there configuration
issues that can trip you up?
NFS over UDP is sometimes recommended by Netapp SE's to avoid TCP overhead. TCP is preferable in my opinion.
I have not personally implemented Oracle on NAS, but I've been in contact with folks in my company who have played with it. The Solaris gotcha is the big problem. If you're using ORacle on HP-UX, try it out.
/Brian/
Brian Long | | | Americas IT Hosting Sys Admin | .|||. .|||. Phone: (919) XXX-XXXX | ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:.. Pager: (888) XXX-XXXX | C i s c o S y s t e m s
-
Joseph Bishop