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

RE: [Linux-cluster] gfs2 performance

I have to admit confusion here.


GFS2 is a shared file system. EXT3 is not.


I would expect shared file systems to always have at least somewhat worse performance than a local

file system, for a variety of reasons… in particular the network, eh.


Anyway, I'm curious about the status of GFS2, including: how well /ought/ it be working at this point?




From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of eric johnson
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:31 PM
To: linux clustering
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] gfs2 performance


Hi Ozgur -

It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on the domain of problems you
were hoping to have GFS2 solve and then how you ultimately tackled them
with just EXT3.

I'm certainly not saying that one can't solve them with EXT3 - just curious
to see the approach.


2008/7/14 Ozgur Akan <ozgurakan gmail com>:


Unfortunately, we formatted 8TB volume with EXT3 and finally put it into production.

I am really disappointed with GFS2 performance, it is not fast enough for large file systems with many files. On the other hand we still use GFS for a 350gb partition with low IO. GFS has many good promises but only for some specific environments with probably low IO, small number of files etc..

I think it can never be as fast as EXT3 because if its design and targets but something close would make us more than happy.

best wishes,
Ozgur Akan
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster redhat com


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