[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] cluster architecture

IVANYI Ivan wrote:
I've got 3 nodes direct attached to SAN. The performance of GFS has disappointed me a bit so far. Maybe I've got something wrong but then again documentation is lacking... unless I'm looking in the wrong places.

Previously in a slightly different configuration I had only a slight performance hit with IBM's GPFS.

Rick Stevens wrote:

vahram wrote:

Raw throughput isn't really an issue for us. We're more interested in seek times. My biggest concern with GFS is stability and performance...any feedback in regards to that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

So far, GFS has worked quite well under our tests. We have yet to have it break. Our current GFS implementation is only on two nodes with gulm running on a separate lock server. I intend to update the kernels on those nodes sometime this week (to the 2.6.11 variety) and change the locking from gulm to cman (since that seems to be fixed at this point).

Again not too sure about the different locking mechanisms .. do you mean cman/dlm? will this work better for you?

Currently we use cman to do the LVM locking/clustering stuff and gulm to do the GFS locking as cman wasn't reliable handling GFS. The gods that write the stuff now tell me that cman can handle GFS properly, so I'm going to give it a whirl.

- Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer     rstevens vitalstream com -
- VitalStream, Inc.                       http://www.vitalstream.com -
-                                                                    -
-  You know the old saying--any technology sufficiently advanced is  -
-               indistinguishable from a Perl script                 -
-                                 --Programming Perl, 2nd Edition    -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]