This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D185.1BE19CC0 Content-Type: text/plain with the advancements of filesystem management, especially with VxVM, it is recommended to upgrade to VxVM instead of using both MD and VxVM (although still possible as a valid configuration). below are some outstanding comments on this issue (rated preferentially): It is definitely good to have both vxvm and vxfs. It doesn't hurt to have md, but why? Unless it was there when you arrived and you aren't allowed to take the time to remove it, then use vxvm instead of md. If, like some people, you are using md to manage your root disk and its mirror(s), then take a look at the Sun Blueprint on a best practice for managing root disks with vxvm. It is excellent. I have taken the steps in that document and automated the process of making the mirror (for my shop's standard root disk volumes) and de-encapsulating the root disk and making it a standard initialized disk. It works great. In fact, I recently had to replace a root disk. Vxvm allowed me to do little more than simply to remove and replace the disk. Md would have required much more work. Md is cool as far as it goes, but vxvm is superior. -Brooke King If you are running all three applications on your machine, then obviously it can be done. My only thought is WHY? Each has its own set of peculiarities. Why punish yourself? I asssume that any one set of disks or partitions is managed by only one disk management applictaion. I'd bite the bullet and convert them all over to one system. -Dave Harrington "md" is more robust for managing the '/','/usr', and '/var' if seperate, filesystems because of it's lower level of abstraction than VxVM's. "VxVM" requires a "rootdg". If the rootdg gets corrupted it is virtually impossible to recover. If your OS is in i there, you're going to have to rebuild the box. "VxVM" allows great advantages for the other filesystems than "md" however, like online filesystem growing and *shrinking* -- a product of the high level of abstraction. There are extensions to it such as QuickIO which can speed raw file performance for DB's such as Sybase (claim is 140% of raw perf). "VxFS" is an extent-based journaling filesystem that has faster throughput than UFS, and the Journaling reduces the filesystem checking on boot - speeding it up. -Steve- We do it, but not on the same disks, of course. Our standard database build is straight mirroring on the boot vol with md, then VXVM database edition with vxfs and quickio for table space. Often we'll skip the vxfs and just use raw partitions, depending on the situation. - eric shafto I have seen this strategy used many times, and as long as good records are kept and clear-cut standards in place, it is very workable. The gotcha rears its greasy head when each administrative finger in the system pie leaves an indelible stamp of individuality on the mix; in other words, be exquisitely anal in setting rules for disk group names, disk names, logging, etc. Use the defaults, make everything plain vanilla, and then when you have to piece it back together after SNAFUS, the puzzle pieces match. (spoken from sad experience) -E. Lee -----Original Message----- "Francis, Rick" wrote: can anyone comment on whether using all three of these disk mgmt. apps on the same machine is a good thing or a bad thing (runs oracle databases)? thanks. rf The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D185.1BE19CC0 Content-Type: text/html <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001>with the advancements of filesystem management, especially with VxVM, it is recommended to upgrade to VxVM instead of using both MD and VxVM (although still possible as a valid configuration). below are some outstanding comments on this issue (rated preferentially):</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>It is definitely good to have both vxvm and vxfs. It doesn't hurt to have md,</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>but why? Unless it was there when you arrived and you aren't allowed to take</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>the time to remove it, then use vxvm instead of md. If, like some people, you</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>are using md to manage your root disk and its mirror(s), then take a look at</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>the Sun Blueprint on a best practice for managing root disks with vxvm. It is</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>excellent.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>I have taken the steps in that document and automated the process of making</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>the mirror (for my shop's standard root disk volumes) and de-encapsulating the</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>root disk and making it a standard initialized disk. It works great. In fact,</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>I recently had to replace a root disk. Vxvm allowed me to do little more than</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>simply to remove and replace the disk. Md would have required much more work.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>Md is cool as far as it goes, but vxvm is superior.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001>-Brooke King</SPAN></FONT></P></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=123434314-30042001> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>If you are running all three applications on your machine, then obviously it </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>can be done.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>My only thought is WHY? Each has its own set of peculiarities. Why punish </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>yourself? </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>I asssume that any one set of disks or partitions is managed by only one disk </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>management applictaion. I'd bite the bullet and convert them all over to one </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>system. </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=123434314-30042001>-</SPAN>Dave Harrington</FONT></FONT></FONT></P></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=123434314-30042001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2> "md" is more robust for managing the '/','/usr', and '/var' if <BR>seperate, filesystems because of it's lower level of abstraction <BR>than VxVM's. "VxVM" requires a "rootdg". If the rootdg gets <BR>corrupted it is virtually impossible to recover. If your OS is in i <BR>there, you're going to have to rebuild the box. </FONT> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2> "VxVM" allows great advantages for the other filesystems <BR>than "md" however, like online filesystem growing and *shrinking* <BR>-- a product of the high level of abstraction. There are extensions <BR>to it such as QuickIO which can speed raw file performance <BR>for DB's such as Sybase (claim is 140% of raw perf). </FONT> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2> "VxFS" is an extent-based journaling filesystem that has <BR>faster throughput than UFS, and the Journaling reduces the <BR>filesystem checking on boot - speeding it up. </FONT> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>-Steve- </FONT></P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=123434314-30042001>We do it, but not on the same disks, of course. Our standard database build is straight mirroring on the boot vol with md, then VXVM database edition with vxfs and quickio for table space. Often we'll skip the vxfs and just use raw partitions, depending on the situation.</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><SPAN class=123434314-30042001></SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=123434314-30042001>- eric shafto</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=123434314-30042001></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </P><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=123434314-30042001> <DIV><SPAN class=211051423-27042001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Tahoma size=2>I have seen this strategy used many times, and as long as good records are kept and clear-cut standards in place, it is very workable. The gotcha rears its greasy head when each administrative finger in the system pie leaves an indelible stamp of individuality on the mix; in other words, be exquisitely anal in setting rules for disk group names, disk names, logging, etc. Use the defaults, make everything plain vanilla, and then when you have to piece it back together after SNAFUS, the puzzle pieces match.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=211051423-27042001><FONT face=Tahoma></FONT></SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=211051423-27042001><FONT color=#0000ff face=Tahoma size=2>(spoken from sad experience)</FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Tahoma> <DIV><SPAN class=211051423-27042001><SPAN class=123434314-30042001>-</SPAN>E. Lee</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=123434314-30042001></SPAN><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2>-----Original Message-----</DIV></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"></FONT>"Francis, Rick" wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"> <FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>can anyone comment on whether using all three of these disk mgmt. apps on the same machine is a good thing or a bad thing (runs oracle databases)?</FONT></FONT> <P><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>thanks.</FONT></FONT> <P><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>rf</FONT></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> <BR> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.</FONT></P> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D185.1BE19CC0--Received on Mon Apr 30 15:51:59 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 23 2016 - 16:24:53 EDT