2000-11-17 18:18:54

by Martin Dalecki

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

Can anybody on tell me whatever there are still
serious pitfalls in running Oracle-8.1.6.1R2 on the
current testing version of the 2.4 kernel series?
If I rememeber correctly there where some problems with
SHM handling still left to resolve...

Thank's in advance for any response!


2000-11-17 18:24:24

by Christoph Rohland

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, [email protected] wrote:
> If I rememeber correctly there where some problems with
> SHM handling still left to resolve...

Nope.

Greetings
Christoph

2000-11-17 18:43:59

by Alan Cox

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

> Can anybody on tell me whatever there are still
> serious pitfalls in running Oracle-8.1.6.1R2 on the

Yes.

> If I rememeber correctly there where some problems with
> SHM handling still left to resolve...

SHM is resolved but O_SYNC is not yet fixed. You could therefore easily lose
your entire database

2000-11-17 19:04:49

by Jeff Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10


Alan,

When we ported Oracle to NetWare, we found that making changes to the
core file systems in NetWare that Oracle needed would tank FS
performance, so we came up with something called direct FS, a separate
File System interface just for Oracle. The SOSD layer inside of Oracle
allows them, via simple config statements, to redirect to different file
systems, even specialized ones, so this is trivial for them to
instrument. The whole O_SYNC thing accross the entire OS could be
problematic to support.

In NetWare, directFS was little more than a "raw" interface that
bypassed the file cache. It would be like having an API to a direct
physical file system that never cached data in the buffer cache. In
Linux, this may be tough to pull off, but Al Viro could instrument a
raw_read, raw_write function table entry that would do something
similiar that would allow Oracle to detect if an FS had a raw mode,
since this is what they actually need.

My 2 cents anyway.

8)

Jeff

Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Can anybody on tell me whatever there are still
> > serious pitfalls in running Oracle-8.1.6.1R2 on the
>
> Yes.
>
> > If I rememeber correctly there where some problems with
> > SHM handling still left to resolve...
>
> SHM is resolved but O_SYNC is not yet fixed. You could therefore easily lose
> your entire database
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

2000-11-17 19:21:04

by Alan Cox

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

> performance, so we came up with something called direct FS, a separate
> File System interface just for Oracle. The SOSD layer inside of Oracle

Yeah but you see thats ugly

> In NetWare, directFS was little more than a "raw" interface that
> bypassed the file cache. It would be like having an API to a direct
> physical file system that never cached data in the buffer cache. In

Its called O_DIRECT and kiovecs. Its already there. Much more generic than
an 'oraclefs'

Alan

2000-11-17 19:45:10

by Jeff Merkey

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10



Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > performance, so we came up with something called direct FS, a separate
> > File System interface just for Oracle. The SOSD layer inside of Oracle
>
> Yeah but you see thats ugly
>
> > In NetWare, directFS was little more than a "raw" interface that
> > bypassed the file cache. It would be like having an API to a direct
> > physical file system that never cached data in the buffer cache. In
>
> Its called O_DIRECT and kiovecs. Its already there. Much more generic than
> an 'oraclefs'

Then they should have what they need. If they have an SOSD plugin, no
reason
it shouldn't run.

8)

Jeff

>
> Alan
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

2000-11-18 11:37:41

by Frank van Maarseveen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 06:14:14PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> SHM is resolved but O_SYNC is not yet fixed. You could therefore easily lose
> your entire database

I assume 2.2.18-pre-latest is ok?
Some oracle doc still refers to 2.0.34

--
Frank

2000-11-18 17:52:11

by Alan Cox

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

> On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 06:14:14PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > SHM is resolved but O_SYNC is not yet fixed. You could therefore easily lose
> > your entire database
>
> I assume 2.2.18-pre-latest is ok?

I certainly hope so 8)

Alan

2000-11-18 17:59:15

by Josue Emmanuel Amaro

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

Frank,

You must be looking at Oracle 8.0 docs. If you are looking to update a production
system we only support stable kernels. Pre kernels are not yet really stable and
therefore not supported. (We had to draw the line somewhere.)

That said, we will look into O_DIRECT and kiovects. We may be able to do some
performance testing on that.

Regards,

Frank van Maarseveen wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 06:14:14PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > SHM is resolved but O_SYNC is not yet fixed. You could therefore easily lose
> > your entire database
>
> I assume 2.2.18-pre-latest is ok?
> Some oracle doc still refers to 2.0.34
>
> --
> Frank
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
=======================================================================
Josue Emmanuel Amaro [email protected]
Linux Products Manager Phone: 650.506.1239
Intel and Linux Technologies Group Fax: 650.413.0167
=======================================================================


Attachments:
Josue.Amaro.vcf (390.00 B)
Card for Josue Emmanuel Amaro