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

Re: [Linux-cluster] GFS and GFS2 : two questions: which is bettter; gfs_controld error



Ian Brown wrote:

 - Hello,
  I had installed RHEL5 on two x86_64 machine on the same LAN; afterwards I
  had installed the RHEL5 cluster suite packege (cman-2.0.60-1.el5) and
  openais-0.80.2-1.el5.


  I had also installed kmod-gfs-0.1.16-5.2.6.18_8.el5 and gfs-utils
and gfs2-utils.

  I had crated a 2-node cluster and started the cman service OK on both nodes.

  Now I tried to create a gfs partition with gfs_mkfs (with -p lock_dlm)
  and mount it, and I got errors when trying to mount it (this errors
talk about
  gfs_controld).
You didn't include the error message here ? This could be a known issue where gfs kernel module is not loaded by default (due to a RPM dependency problem). To check it out: before mounting the gfs partition ...

1) shell> lsmod
This is to check whether gfs (not gfs2) kernel module is loaded. If yes, mount the gfs partition, then read the /var/log/messages file and cut-and-paste the print-out (a.k.a the gfs_controld error messages) and repost here.

2) shell> cd /lib/modules/'your kernel version'/ extra/gfs
Check if gfs.ko is there. If not, you have installation problems.

3)  shell> insmod gfs.ko
This is to manually load gfs kernel module

4) Retry the mount. If still failing, send us the /var/log/messages file.

  I made a second try with mkfs.gfs2 (also with -p lock_dlm) );
  this time I **could** mounted the gfs2 partition succesfully.

GFS2 is part of the base kernel, so it doesn't need to worry about RPM dependency.

  My questions are:

    - should I be able with this installation to create and mount a gfs
    partition ? in case this is possible - what can be my mistale ?

See above.

    - is gfs2 considered safe to work with ? or is it still experimental and
    not recommended ? which features do I have in GFS2 which I don't have in
    GFS?

The advantage of GFS2 are (my personal opinion - not necessarily Red Hat's) : 1. It is mainstream and will be well maintained and updated; vs. GFS starts to enter maintanence mode. We're hoping to phase out GFS as soon as GFS2 is proved to be stable. 2. It preforms better (faster), particularly for smaller file size, but not as stable as GFS.

However, there are tools to facilitate people to migrate from GFS to GFS2. So if you want stability, GFS is not a bad choice at this moment.

-- Wendy


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