Re: OCFS2 or GFS2 for cluster filesystem?

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

 



On 12 Jul 2013, at 13:21, Tom Verdaat wrote:

> In the mean time I've done some more research and figured out that:
> 	• There is a bunch of other cluster file systems but GFS2 and OCFS2 are the only open source ones I could find, and I believe the only ones that are integrated in the Linux kernel.
> 	• OCFS2 seems to have a lot more public information than GFS2. It has more documentation and a living - though not very active - mailing list.
> 	• OCFS2 seems to be in active use by its sponsor Oracle, while I can't find much on GFS2 from its sponsor RedHat.
> 	• OCFS2 documentation indicates a node soft limit of 256 versus 16 for GFS2, and there are actual deployments of stable 45 TB+ production clusters.
> 	• Performance tests from 2010 indicate OCFS2 clearly beating GFS2, though of course newer versions have been released since.
> 	• GFS2 has more fencing options than OCFS2.

FWIW: For VM images (i.e. large files accessed by only one client at once) OCFS2 seems to perform better than GFS2. I seem to remember some performance issues with small files, and large directories with a lot of contention (multiple readers and writers of files or file metadata). You may need to forward port some of the more modern tools to your distro.

-- 
Alex Bligh




_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com





[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux