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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 83, Issue 15



Dear All,
   
    Currently other node is shutdown.
    First of all we will check the cluster is up in simplex mode

Regards
-S.Balaji

linux-cluster-request redhat com wrote:
Send Linux-cluster mailing list submissions to
	linux-cluster redhat com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	linux-cluster-request redhat com

You can reach the person managing the list at
	linux-cluster-owner redhat com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Linux-cluster digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13 (Sunil_Gupta2 Dell com)
   2. which is better gfs2 and ocfs2? (yue)
   3. Re: which is better gfs2 and ocfs2? (Jeff Sturm)
   4. Re: which is better gfs2 and ocfs2? (Michael Lackner)
   5. Re: which is better gfs2 and ocfs2? (rhurst bidmc harvard edu)
   6. Re: dlm-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 and
      gfs-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 woes (Gregory Bartholomew)
   7. Re: which is better gfs2 and ocfs2? (Thomas Sjolshagen)
   8. Re: dlm-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 and
      gfs-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 woes (Andrew Beekhof)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:44:17 +0530
From: <Sunil_Gupta2 Dell com>
To: <linux-cluster redhat com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13
Message-ID:
	<8EF1FE59C3C8694E94F558EB27E464B71D130C752D BLRX7MCDC201 AMER DELL COM>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

One node is offline cluster is not formed....check if multicast traffic is working...

--Sunil

From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Balaji
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:54 PM
To: linux-cluster redhat com
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13

Dear All,

    Please find attached log file for more analysis
    Please help me to solve this problem ASAP.

    Clustat Command Output is below
    [root corviewprimary ~]# clustat
    Cluster Status for EMSCluster @ Wed Mar  9 17:00:03 2011
    Member Status: Quorate

     Member Name                                                   ID   Status
     ----------- -------                                                   ---- ------
     corviewprimary                                                    1 Online, Local
     corviewsecondary                                                  2 Offline

    [root corviewprimary ~]#

Regards,
-S.Balaji

linux-cluster-request redhat com<mailto:linux-cluster-request redhat com> wrote:

Send Linux-cluster mailaddr:115.249.107.179ing list submissions to

        linux-cluster redhat com<mailto:linux-cluster redhat com>



To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

        https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

        linux-cluster-request redhat com<mailto:linux-cluster-request redhat com>



You can reach the person managing the list at

        linux-cluster-owner redhat com<mailto:linux-cluster-owner redhat com>



When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

than "Re: Contents of Linux-cluster digest..."





Today's Topics:



   1. Re: clvmd hangs on startup (Valeriu Mutu)

   2. Re: clvmd hangs on startup (Jeff Sturm)

   3. dlm-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 and

      gfs-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 woes (Gregory Bartholomew)

   4. Re: dlm-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 and

      gfs-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 woes (Fabio M. Di Nitto)

   5. Re: unable to live migrate a vm in rh el 6: Migration

      unexpectedly failed (Lon Hohberger)

   6. Re: rgmanager not running (Sunil_Gupta2 Dell com<mailto:Sunil_Gupta2 Dell com>)

   7. Re: unable to live migrate a vm in rh el 6: Migration

      unexpectedly failed (Gianluca Cecchi)

   8. Re: dlm-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 and

      gfs-pcmk-3.0.17-1.fc14.x86_64 woes (Andrew Beekhof)

   9. Re: unable to live migrate a vm in rh el 6: Migration

      unexpectedly failed (Gianluca Cecchi)

  10. Re: unable to live migrate a vm in rh el 6: Migration

      unexpectedly failed (Gianluca Cecchi)





----------------------------------------------------------------------



Message: 1

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:11:53 -0500

From: Valeriu Mutu <vmutu pcbi upenn edu><mailto:vmutu pcbi upenn edu>

To: linux clustering <linux-cluster redhat com><mailto:linux-cluster redhat com>

Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] clvmd hangs on startup

Message-ID: <20110308171153 GB272 bsdera pcbi upenn edu><mailto:20110308171153 GB272 bsdera pcbi upenn edu>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



Hi,



I think the problem is solved. I was using a 9000bytes MTU on the Xen virtual machines' iSCSI interface. Switching back to 1500bytes MTU caused the clvmd to start working.



On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:50:57AM -0500, Valeriu Mutu wrote:



On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 05:36:45PM -0500, Jeff Sturm wrote:



Double-check that the 2nd node can read and write the shared iSCSI

storage.



Reading/writing from/to the iSCSI storage device works as seen below.



On the 1st node:

[root vm1 cluster]# dd count=10000 bs=1024 if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/mapper/pcbi-homes

10000+0 records in

10000+0 records out

10240000 bytes (10 MB) copied, 3.39855 seconds, 3.0 MB/s



[root vm1 cluster]# dd count=10000 bs=1024 if=/dev/mapper/pcbi-homes of=/dev/null

10000+0 records in

10000+0 records out

10240000 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.331069 seconds, 30.9 MB/s



On the 2nd node:

[root vm2 ~]# dd count=10000 bs=1024 if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/mapper/pcbi-homes

10000+0 records in

10000+0 records out

10240000 bytes (10 MB) copied, 3.2465 seconds, 3.2 MB/s



[root vm2 ~]# dd count=10000 bs=1024 if=/dev/mapper/pcbi-homes of=/dev/null

10000+0 records in

10000+0 records out

10240000 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.223337 seconds, 45.8 MB/s







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20110309/dc0cbf73/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:13:35 +0800 (CST)
From: yue <ooolinux 163 com>
To: linux-cluster <linux-cluster redhat com>
Subject: [Linux-cluster] which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?
Message-ID: <4f996c7c 1356a 12e9af733aa Coremail ooolinux 163 com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"

which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?
i want to share fc-san, do you know which is better?
stablility,performmance?
 
 
thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20110309/603fcadf/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:48:03 -0500
From: Jeff Sturm <jeff sturm eprize com>
To: linux clustering <linux-cluster redhat com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?
Message-ID:
	<64D0546C5EBBD147B75DE133D798665F0855C34D hugo eprize local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Do you expect to get an objective answer to that from a Red Hat list?
Most users on this forum are familiar with GFS2, some may have tried
OCFS2 but there's bound to be a bias.

 

GFS has been extremely stable for us (haven't migrated to GFS2 yet, went
into production with GFS in 2008).  Just last night in fact a single
hardware node failed in one of our virtual test clusters, the fencing
operations were successful and everything recovered nicely.  The cluster
never lost quorum and disruption was minimal.

 

Performance is highly variable depending on the software application.
We have developed our own application which gave us freedom to tailor it
for GFS, improving performance and throughput significantly.

 

Regardless of what you hear, why not give both a try?  Your evaluation
and feedback would be very useful to the cluster community.

 

-Jeff

 

From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of yue
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:14 AM
To: linux-cluster
Subject: [Linux-cluster] which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?

 

which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?

i want to share fc-san, do you know which is better?

stablility,performmance?

 

 

thanks

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20110309/492d14bd/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:53:40 +0100
From: Michael Lackner <michael lackner unileoben ac at>
To: linux clustering <linux-cluster redhat com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?
Message-ID: <4D779474 6020509 unileoben ac at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

I guess not all usage scenarios are comparable, but I once
tried to use GFS2 as well as OCFS2 to share a FC SAN to three
nodes using 8GBit FC and 1GBit Ethernet for the cluster
communication. Additionally, i compared it to a trial version
of Dataplows SAN File System (SFS). I was also supposed to
compare it to Quantum StorNext, but there just wasn't enough
time for that.

OS was CentOS 5.3 at that time.

So I tried a lot of performance tuning settings for all three,
and it was like this:

1.) SFS was the fastest, but caused reproducible kernel panics.
Those were fixed by Dataplow, but then SFS produced corrupted data
when writing large files. Unusable in that state, so we gave up.
SFS uses NFS for lock management. Noteworthy: Writing data on the
machine with the NFS lock manager also crippled the I/O performance
for all the other nodes in a VERY, VERY bad way..

2.) GFS2 was the slowest, and despite all the tunings I tried, it
never came close to anything that any local FS would provide in
terms of speed (compared to EXT3 and XFS). The statfs() calls
pretty much crippled the FS. Multiple I/O streams on multiple nodes:
Not a good idea it seems..  Sometimes you have to wait for minutes
for the FS to just give you any feedback, when you're hammering
it with let's say 30 sequential write streams across 3 nodes, with
the streams equally distributed among them.

3.) OCFS2 was slightly faster than GFS2, especially when it came
to statfs(), like ls -l. It did not slow down that much. But overall,
it was still just far too slow.

Our solution: Hook up the SAN on one node only, and share via NFS
over GBit Ethernet. Overall, we are getting better results even
with the obvious network overhead, especially when doing a lot of
I/O on multiple clients.

Our original goal was to provide a high-speed centralized storage
solution for multiple nodes without having to use ethernet. This
failed completely unfortunately.

Hope this helps, it's just my experience though. As usual, mileage
may vary...

yue wrote:
  
which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?
i want to share fc-san, do you know which is better?
stablility,performmance?
    

  


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