The mount_vxfs man page says that it approximates the older Unix system
behaviour. Some white papers I've read say that it increases performnce at
the cost of a possible data loss in the event of a system crash.

We are setting up a system under HP-UX 11.11, with Online JFS. It will have
multiple Oracle databases and we would like to tune them to perform as well
as possible.

I've read 5 or so white papers on the subject and most recommend using
delaylog, along with some other options. They do not go in to how the option
works however. I can't find anything by searching the web either.

The definition says that some metadata writes are delayed in being written
to the intent log. I can live with things like timestamps, chmod, chown
being delayed and possibly lost but an inode update resulting from a file
extension is another matter. This could cause some real problems for Oracle.

Can someone please point me to where I can find what this option does, so I
can understand the risks?

The alternative is to use "log", but this has a performance penalty that I
would rather avoid if possible.

If you're planning to use this file system for Oracle
you should use the VxFS Database Edition, rather than
the vanilla VxFS version.


dk


"kevin bale" <kevin_bale@primus.com.au> wrote in message 
news:4220a3ab_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> The mount_vxfs man page says that it approximates the older Unix system
> behaviour. Some white papers I've read say that it increases performnce at
> the cost of a possible data loss in the event of a system crash.
>
> We are setting up a system under HP-UX 11.11, with Online JFS. It will 
> have
> multiple Oracle databases and we would like to tune them to perform as 
> well
> as possible.
>
> I've read 5 or so white papers on the subject and most recommend using
> delaylog, along with some other options. They do not go in to how the 
> option
> works however. I can't find anything by searching the web either.
>
> The definition says that some metadata writes are delayed in being written
> to the intent log. I can live with things like timestamps, chmod, chown
> being delayed and possibly lost but an inode update resulting from a file
> extension is another matter. This could cause some real problems for 
> Oracle.
>
> Can someone please point me to where I can find what this option does, so 
> I
> can understand the risks?
>
> The alternative is to use "log", but this has a performance penalty that I
> would rather avoid if possible.
>
> 

Hi !

Dan Koren wrote:
> If you're planning to use this file system for Oracle
> you should use the VxFS Database Edition, rather than
> the vanilla VxFS version.
What do you excatly mean ? - OnlineJFS ?

Lars

kevin bale wrote:
> The mount_vxfs man page says that it approximates the older Unix system
> behaviour. Some white papers I've read say that it increases performnce at
> the cost of a possible data loss in the event of a system crash.
> 
> We are setting up a system under HP-UX 11.11, with Online JFS. It will have
> multiple Oracle databases and we would like to tune them to perform as well
> as possible.
> 
> I've read 5 or so white papers on the subject and most recommend using
> delaylog, along with some other options. They do not go in to how the option
> works however. I can't find anything by searching the web either.
You mean "delaylog,nodatainlog,mincache=direct,convosync=direct" ? - It 
increases performance for oracle drasicly !

> The definition says that some metadata writes are delayed in being written
> to the intent log. I can live with things like timestamps, chmod, chown
> being delayed and possibly lost but an inode update resulting from a file
> extension is another matter. This could cause some real problems for Oracle.
> 
> Can someone please point me to where I can find what this option does, so I
> can understand the risks?
Some systemcalls will be async, which "can" causes failures. I think the 
risk is a minimum.

Lars

"Lars Bausch" <lars.bausch@dotsch.de> wrote in message 
news:d080nh$5st$1@windu.dotsch.de...
> Hi !
>
> Dan Koren wrote:
>> If you're planning to use this file system for Oracle
>> you should use the VxFS Database Edition, rather than
>> the vanilla VxFS version.
>
> What do you excatly mean ? - OnlineJFS ?
>


There is a Database Edition of the Veritas
Storage Foundation (which is the new name
under which VxFS+VxVM are marketed) that
is designed specifically for databases.

You can find all the info you need on
the Veritas web site.



dk 

> > Dan Koren wrote:
> >> If you're planning to use this file system for Oracle
> >> you should use the VxFS Database Edition, rather than
> >> the vanilla VxFS version.
> >
> > What do you excatly mean ? - OnlineJFS ?
> >
>
>
> There is a Database Edition of the Veritas
> Storage Foundation (which is the new name
> under which VxFS+VxVM are marketed) that
> is designed specifically for databases.
>
> You can find all the info you need on
> the Veritas web site.

OnlineJFS is a HP product. It is similar, but not the same as the Veritas
products. Thanks for your replies but we are not going the Veritas way. The
HP  products are quite good.

> > I've read 5 or so white papers on the subject and most recommend using
> > delaylog, along with some other options. They do not go in to how the
option
> > works however. I can't find anything by searching the web either.
> You mean "delaylog,nodatainlog,mincache=direct,convosync=direct" ? - It
> increases performance for oracle drasicly !

That's the one.

> > Can someone please point me to where I can find what this option does,
so I
> > can understand the risks?
> Some systemcalls will be async, which "can" causes failures. I think the
> risk is a minimum.

Yes, our HP consultant says he uses it without a second thought. I was just
wondering if there was a more exact definition somewhere.

"kevin bale" <kevin_bale@primus.com.au> wrote in message 
news:4228ed51$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
>> > Dan Koren wrote:
>> >> If you're planning to use this file system for Oracle
>> >> you should use the VxFS Database Edition, rather than
>> >> the vanilla VxFS version.
>> >
>> > What do you excatly mean ? - OnlineJFS ?
>>
>> There is a Database Edition of the Veritas
>> Storage Foundation (which is the new name
>> under which VxFS+VxVM are marketed) that
>> is designed specifically for databases.
>>
>> You can find all the info you need on
>> the Veritas web site.
>
> OnlineJFS is a HP product. It is similar,
> but not the same as the Veritas products.


You must be suffering from marketing brainwash.

OnlineJFS is simply a bundle of VxFS functionality
that had been left out of the basic VxFS package
HP refers to as JFS.

BTW JFS is nothing other than the VxFS file system
for customers who do not feel comfortable with non
HP products. OnlineJFS is an additional Veritas
package on top of that. They are HP products in
name only.


> Thanks for your replies but we are not going the
> Veritas way. The HP products are quite good.


As I said earlier, marketing brainwash.



dk 

kevin bale wrote:
>>>Can someone please point me to where I can find what this option does,
>>>so I
>>>can understand the risks?
>>Some systemcalls will be async, which "can" causes failures. I think the
>>risk is a minimum.
>  
I think the only risk, it for a yery short time, when the journal is in 
  the memory, and are not written to the disks.So I think it is only a 
risk issue at a powerfailure.

> Yes, our HP consultant says he uses it without a second thought. I was just
> wondering if there was a more exact definition somewhere.
Have you looked at itrc and doc.hp.com or at veritas.com ?

Lars

"Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Lars Bausch" <lars.bausch@dotsch.de> wrote in message 
> news:d080nh$5st$1@windu.dotsch.de...
> > Hi !
> >
> > Dan Koren wrote:
> >> If you're planning to use this file system for Oracle
> >> you should use the VxFS Database Edition, rather than
> >> the vanilla VxFS version.
> >
> > What do you excatly mean ? - OnlineJFS ?
> >
> 
> 
> There is a Database Edition of the Veritas
> Storage Foundation (which is the new name
> under which VxFS+VxVM are marketed) that
> is designed specifically for databases.

It may be "designed" for databases, but what's the real benefit?
IMHO the first thing is to uninstall VxVM, because it's just a base product
with minimal functionality at the cost of high complexity. Just another new
"buy more licenses" base product.

And well, the said OnlineJFS is also designed for Databases using the direct
storage API...

> 
> You can find all the info you need on
> the Veritas web site.
> 
> 
> 
> dk 

"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@RZ.Uni-Regensburg.DE> wrote in message 
news:86d5ubu43d.fsf@pc8032.rz.uni-regensburg.de...
> "Dan Koren" <dankoren@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> "Lars Bausch" <lars.bausch@dotsch.de> wrote in message
>> news:d080nh$5st$1@windu.dotsch.de...
>> > Hi !
>> >
>> > Dan Koren wrote:
>> >> If you're planning to use this file system for Oracle
>> >> you should use the VxFS Database Edition, rather than
>> >> the vanilla VxFS version.
>> >
>> > What do you excatly mean ? - OnlineJFS ?
>>
>> There is a Database Edition of the Veritas
>> Storage Foundation (which is the new name
>> under which VxFS+VxVM are marketed) that
>> is designed specifically for databases.
>
> It may be "designed" for databases,


It is *REALLY* *DESIGNED* for databases,
not just "designed". It is not a marketing
package. It is *REALLY* cutting edge kernel
software that (as far as I know) has no
equivalent in the marketplace.


> but what's the real benefit?


Significantly higher performance and
scalability for Oracle, Sybase and DB2.
There are plenty of white papers and
benchmark results on the Veritas web
site that one could do a lot worse
than spend a few minutes to read.


> IMHO the first thing is to uninstall VxVM,


?!?!?


> because it's just a base product with
> minimal functionality at the cost of
> high complexity. Just another new
> "buy more licenses" base product.


Do you know of any other volume manager
on the market that has more functionality,
higher performance and better reliability
than VxVM? If so I would really like to
see it. Please enlighten us all.


> And well, the said OnlineJFS is also
> designed for Databases using the direct
> storage API...


Nope. OnlineJFS is just a package of VxFS
functions that were not bundled with base
VxFS -- mostly for marketing reasons.



dk 

> > Yes, our HP consultant says he uses it without a second thought. I was
just
> > wondering if there was a more exact definition somewhere.
> Have you looked at itrc and doc.hp.com or at veritas.com ?
>
> Lars
>
All those & more.

> >> >
> >> > What do you excatly mean ? - OnlineJFS ?
> >
> > OnlineJFS is a HP product. It is similar,
> > but not the same as the Veritas products.
>
>
> You must be suffering from marketing brainwash.

Funny, I don't feel as if I am suffering from anyting. I am aware of the
origins of HP's JFS, but nowadays you can get Veriats for HP-UX. In the
interests of accuracy, we are using OnlineJFS, without the want nor the
desire to buy any the Veritas branded product.