[Linux-cluster] which is better gfs2 and ocfs2?

[yue]

1.thanks,  i have 20-100 nodes.
anyone knows  how citrix does ?    



At 2011-03-14 00:21:40，"Thomas Sjolshagen" <thomas at sjolshagen.net> wrote:

>I'm using gfs2 to host KVM vm image files for a pair of clustered hosts. Am using iscsi targets for the vm data devices however as they are hosting imap spools. No stability issues or performance problems I can readily or easily attribute to the gfs2 FS in my use case.
>
>// Thomas
>
>On Mar 13, 2011, at 9:37 AM, yue <ooolinux at 163.com> wrote:
>
>> 1.i need gfs2 or ocfs2 to store xen-disk image file(20G--100G),it is big file. the underlying storage  is fc-san.   both of them have  cluster sence.so they fit for me.
>> if gfs2 is ready for product?  anyone use gfs2 in product?  stability is the most important thing.
>> 2.i have try gfs2 and ocfs2 , iozone shows , gfs2 has a good throughput when record>=512k  and file size > 4G.   
>> 3.my kernel is 2.6.32 and latest.
>> 
>> 
>> At 2011-03-13 12:48:17，"Alan Brown" <ajb2 at mssl.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 12/03/11 23:13, Bob Peterson wrote:
>> >> Agreed.  We're abundantly aware of the performance problems,
>> >> and we're not ignoring them.
>> >
>> >I know Bob, thanks.
>> >
>> >> (1) We recently found and fixed a problem that caused the
>> >>      dlm to pass locking traffic much slower than possible.
>> >
>> >Is this rolled into 2.6.18-238.5.1.el5 ?
>> >
>> >> (2) We recently increased the speed and accuracy of fsck.gfs2
>> >>      quite a bit.
>> >
>> >Noted and appreciated. I had cause to use them a few days ago.
>> >
>> >> (3) We also recently developed a patch that improves GFS2's
>> >>      management of cluster locks by making hold times self-tuning.
>> >>      This makes gfs2 perform much faster in many situations.
>> >
>> >Great
>> >
>> >> (4) We've recently developed another performance patch that
>> >>      sped up clustered deletes (unlinks) as much as 25%.
>> >
>> >Good. This has been a real cow but at least for this kind of thing users 
>> >simply tend to go for lunch and let it run.
>> >
>> >> (5) We recently identified and fixed a performance problem
>> >>      related to writing large files that sped things up considerably.
>> >  See question 1 :)
>> >
>> >Can I get hotfixes if possible? (el5.6 x64)
>> >
>> >AB
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Linux-cluster mailing list
>> >Linux-cluster at redhat.com
>> >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Linux-cluster mailing list
>> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
>--
>Linux-cluster mailing list
>Linux-cluster at redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20110314/57f4430b/attachment.htm>