[Linux-cluster] Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 83, Issue 15
Rick Stevens
ricks at nerd.com
Thu Mar 10 17:40:09 UTC 2011
On 03/09/2011 08:42 PM, Balaji wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Currently other node is shutdown.
> First of all we will check the cluster is up in simplex mode
Please don't respond to message digests. Create a NEW message with an
appropriate subject line along with your question or comment.
> linux-cluster-request at redhat.com
> <mailto:linux-cluster-request at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Send Linux-cluster mailing list submissions to
>> linux-cluster at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster at 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 at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster-request at redhat.com>
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> linux-cluster-owner at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster-owner at 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 at Dell.com <mailto:Sunil_Gupta2 at 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 at bidmc.harvard.edu <mailto:rhurst at 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 at Dell.com> <mailto:Sunil_Gupta2 at Dell.com>
>> To:<linux-cluster at redhat.com> <mailto:linux-cluster at redhat.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13
>> Message-ID:
>> <8EF1FE59C3C8694E94F558EB27E464B71D130C752D at BLRX7MCDC201.AMER.DELL.COM> <mailto:8EF1FE59C3C8694E94F558EB27E464B71D130C752D at 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 at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com> [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Balaji
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 4:54 PM
>> To:linux-cluster at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster at 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 at 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 at corviewprimary ~]#
>>
>> Regards,
>> -S.Balaji
>>
>> linux-cluster-request at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster-request at redhat.com><mailto:linux-cluster-request at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Send Linux-cluster mailaddr:115.249.107.179ing list submissions to
>>
>> linux-cluster at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster at redhat.com><mailto:linux-cluster at 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 at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster-request at redhat.com><mailto:linux-cluster-request at redhat.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>
>> linux-cluster-owner at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster-owner at redhat.com><mailto:linux-cluster-owner at 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 at Dell.com <mailto:Sunil_Gupta2 at Dell.com><mailto:Sunil_Gupta2 at 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 at pcbi.upenn.edu> <mailto:vmutu at pcbi.upenn.edu><mailto:vmutu at pcbi.upenn.edu>
>>
>> To: linux clustering<linux-cluster at redhat.com> <mailto:linux-cluster at redhat.com><mailto:linux-cluster at redhat.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] clvmd hangs on startup
>>
>> Message-ID:<20110308171153.GB272 at bsdera.pcbi.upenn.edu> <mailto:20110308171153.GB272 at bsdera.pcbi.upenn.edu><mailto:20110308171153.GB272 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 163.com> <mailto:ooolinux at 163.com>
>> To: linux-cluster<linux-cluster at redhat.com> <mailto:linux-cluster at redhat.com>
>> Subject: [Linux-cluster] which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?
>> Message-ID:<4f996c7c.1356a.12e9af733aa.Coremail.ooolinux at 163.com> <mailto:4f996c7c.1356a.12e9af733aa.Coremail.ooolinux at 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 at eprize.com> <mailto:jeff.sturm at eprize.com>
>> To: linux clustering<linux-cluster at redhat.com> <mailto:linux-cluster at redhat.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?
>> Message-ID:
>> <64D0546C5EBBD147B75DE133D798665F0855C34D at hugo.eprize.local> <mailto:64D0546C5EBBD147B75DE133D798665F0855C34D at 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 at redhat.com <mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com>
>> [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at 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 at unileoben.ac.at> <mailto:michael.lackner at unileoben.ac.at>
>> To: linux clustering<linux-cluster at redhat.com> <mailto:linux-cluster at redhat.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?
>> Message-ID:<4D779474.6020509 at unileoben.ac.at> <mailto:4D779474.6020509 at 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?
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, C2 Hosting ricks at nerd.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- Never put off 'til tommorrow what you can forget altogether! -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Linux-cluster
mailing list