[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



I found a problem with lock_nolock. If I mount two GFS nodes to the same GFS filesystem, actually each node just treats it as local drive, whenever I make some change on one node, the change won’t show up on the other node. I don’t know if this is why the manual says that lock_nolock only works for single node, or is there a workaround to resolve this issue?

 

Thank you all.

 


From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Hong Zheng
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:21 PM
To: linux clustering
Subject: 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]