in 12c, ACFS, ASM, AVDM, Capacity Management, CDB, Cloud Computing, DBaaS, Grid Infrastructure, Multitenant DB, ODA, Oracle Database, PDB, PDB Snapshot Copy, Performance, Snapshot copy, Storage 262 Words

Oracle DB stored on ASM vs ACFS

Nowadays a new Oracle database environment with Grid Infrastructure has three main storage options:

  1. Third party clustered file system
  2. ASM Disk Groups
  3. ACFS File System

While the first option was not in scope, this blog compares the result of the tests between ASM and ACFS, highlighting when to use one or the other to store 12c NON-CDB or CDB Databases.

The tests conducted on different environments using Oracle version 12.1.0.2 July PSU have shown controversial results compared to what Oracle  is promoting for the Oracle Database Appliance (ODA) in the following paper: “Frequently Asked Questions Storing Database Files in ACFS on Oracle Database Appliance”

 

Outcome of the tests

ASM remains the preferred option to achieve the best I/O performance, while ACFS introduces interesting features like DB snapshot to quickly and space efficiently provision new databases.

The performance gap between the two solutions is not negligible as reported below by the  AWR – TOP Timed Events sections of two PDBs, sharing the same infrastructure, executing the same workload but respectively using ASM and ACFS storage:

  • PDBASM: Pluggable Database stored on  ASM Disk Group
  • PDBACFS:Pluggable Database stored on ACFS File System

 

 

PDBASM AWR – TOP Timed Events and Other Stats

topevents_asm

fg_asm

 

 

PDBACFS AWR – TOP Timed Events and Other Stats

TopEvents_ACFS.png

fg_acfs

 

Due to the different characteristics and results when ASM or ACFS is in use, it is not possible to give a generic recommendation. But case by case the choise should be driven by business needs like maximum performance versus fast and efficient database clone.

 

 

 

 

3 thoughts on “Oracle DB stored on ASM vs ACFS”

  1. can you please tell us some details about the test you run?
    As the numbers of “direct path read” “direct path write” and “log file parallel write” differs, it’s interesting how these numbers got created.
    Also other parts of the AWR reports, like CPU usage should be taken into consideration.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Hi Martin
      the test is based on a synthetic load generator which submits the same transactions on both environments.
      About the other parts of AWR reports please tell me which other sections you would like to see and I’ll post an update.
      Emiliano

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment