Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[Christoph Rohland]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, dalecki@evision-ventures.com wrote:
> If I rememeber correctly there where some problems with
> SHM handling still left to resolve...

Nope.

Greetings
		Christoph

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[Alan Cox]

> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[Jeff V. Merkey]

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[dalecki]

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!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[Alan Cox]

> 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

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[Jeff V. Merkey]

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[Frank van Maarseveen]

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[Alan Cox]

> 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

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ORACLE and 2.4-test10

[Josue Emmanuel Amaro]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1186 bytes --]

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
=======================================================================
  Josue Emmanuel Amaro                         Josue.Amaro@oracle.com
  Linux Products Manager                       Phone:   650.506.1239
  Intel and Linux Technologies Group           Fax:     650.413.0167
=======================================================================


[-- Attachment #2: Card for Josue Emmanuel Amaro --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 390 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Amaro;Josue Emmanuel
tel;cell:650-245-5131
tel;fax:650-413-0167
tel;work:650-506-1239
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.oracle.com
org:Intel and Linux Technologies
version:2.1
email;internet:Josue.Amaro@oracle.com
title:Sr.Product Manager - Linux
adr;quoted-printable:;;500 Oracle Parkway=0D=0AMS1ip4;Redwood Shores;CA;94065;United States
fn:Josue Emmanuel Amaro
end:vcard