By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,018 Members | 901 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,018 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

DB2 on Network Mounted Filesystems (Linux) ...

P: n/a
Hi,

Please don't throw your hands up immediately and quote me "this is not
supported" etc ....

I have a "temporary need" to move our DEVELOPMENT databases off our
SAN and onto an NFS filesystem mounted from another machine.
- The Sys. Admin guys want to do some SAN reorganisations.

I am wondering the following, any input/thoughts welcomed

1. Will the database even start/activate when filesystem is NFS
mounted?

2. Should I mitigate some on the potential inherent crash recovery
issues by
ensuring the recovery logs at least are on local disks, or doesn't
this really buy anything i.e I'm still just as vulnerable?

3. The performance hit of remote disks we can take, it is database
corruptions I would really like to avoid, anything else I could do to
reduce the risk?
- e.g I'm intending to take many more online backups through the
day,
in case required.

Many thanks.

Paul.
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
4 Replies


P: n/a
aj
Under Linux Red Hat at least, we have had many, many very strange
issues w/ NFS. From really goofy stuff like date/time stamps
being wrong to java class files somehow getting partially (yes,
partially) cached by NFS - a new class file would be on an NFS-mounted
filesystem that is part of the CLASSPATH, and some parts of the new
class file could be seen by the java runtime, but others couldn't.

Unless you have no other choice, I would **not** recommend mixing
NFS w/ DB2 DMS or SMS containers...

aj

Paul Reddin wrote:
Hi,

Please don't throw your hands up immediately and quote me "this is not
supported" etc ....

I have a "temporary need" to move our DEVELOPMENT databases off our
SAN and onto an NFS filesystem mounted from another machine.
- The Sys. Admin guys want to do some SAN reorganisations.

I am wondering the following, any input/thoughts welcomed

1. Will the database even start/activate when filesystem is NFS
mounted?

2. Should I mitigate some on the potential inherent crash recovery
issues by
ensuring the recovery logs at least are on local disks, or doesn't
this really buy anything i.e I'm still just as vulnerable?

3. The performance hit of remote disks we can take, it is database
corruptions I would really like to avoid, anything else I could do to
reduce the risk?
- e.g I'm intending to take many more online backups through the
day,
in case required.

Many thanks.

Paul.

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
I know you don't want to hear it, but the fact of the matter remains that
NAS is not supported - meaning it will not work - and for extremely good
reasons. Blocking your ears won't change reality.

"Paul Reddin" <pa**@abacus.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1f**************************@posting.google.c om...
Hi,

Please don't throw your hands up immediately and quote me "this is not
supported" etc ....

I have a "temporary need" to move our DEVELOPMENT databases off our
SAN and onto an NFS filesystem mounted from another machine.
- The Sys. Admin guys want to do some SAN reorganisations.

I am wondering the following, any input/thoughts welcomed

1. Will the database even start/activate when filesystem is NFS
mounted?

2. Should I mitigate some on the potential inherent crash recovery
issues by
ensuring the recovery logs at least are on local disks, or doesn't
this really buy anything i.e I'm still just as vulnerable?

3. The performance hit of remote disks we can take, it is database
corruptions I would really like to avoid, anything else I could do to
reduce the risk?
- e.g I'm intending to take many more online backups through the
day,
in case required.

Many thanks.

Paul.

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
Thanks for that.

It was just the sort of feedback I was looking for.
I know of other things that are unsupported, but do work,
but this one looks like one to particularly stay away from.

Unfortunately, the alternative of cloning the DB server involves
other complications too, not least moving RH to SLES - hence my
desire to keep the server code where it was and only move the data.

Thanks again.

Paul.
Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
Ian
Mark Yudkin wrote:
I know you don't want to hear it, but the fact of the matter remains that
NAS is not supported - meaning it will not work - and for extremely good
reasons. Blocking your ears won't change reality.


That's not correct. Certain NAS devices _are_ supported (NetApp Filer
comes to mind). I have worked at more than one client site using
Filers for DB2 UDB with large databases, up to 1Tb. Of course these
NAS devices are optimized for high-traffic NFS and CIFS, and you have
to know what you're doing to configure the client (DB2 server) properly.

That's not to say that the OP's question about running DB2 on an NFS
filesystem served from a RedHat box is a good idea, though.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Nov 12 '05 #5

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.