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

RE: [Linux-cluster] Performance of ES3+GFS6.0+GNBD+LOCK_GULM


Today, I tried the configuration with lock_nolock. I configured one GFS node with lock_nolock and the performance acts as a local drive. But here is the question, I still want to make it as a cluster at least a active-passive cluster. Since for active-passive cluster every time there is only one active node, I assume the data will be consistent when the backup node takes over. I’m not sure if this is a compromise way to keep the better performance and data consistence.

From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Hong Zheng
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:20 AM
To: linux-cluster redhat com
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Performance of ES3+GFS6.0+GNBD+LOCK_GULM


Thanks, Kevin.


Actually I did try the way you recommend. I configured one GFS application node with software iscsi initiator and two lock_gulm servers, the data transfer speed just improved a little bit, but for our application the performance is about the same. Do you know if there is a way to tune GFS performance?



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