IVANYI Ivan wrote:
I've got 3 nodes direct attached to SAN. The performance of GFS has
disappointed me a bit so far. Maybe I've got something wrong but then
again documentation is lacking... unless I'm looking in the wrong places.
Previously in a slightly different configuration I had only a slight
performance hit with IBM's GPFS.
Rick Stevens wrote:
vahram wrote:
Raw throughput isn't really an issue for us. We're more interested
in seek times. My biggest concern with GFS is stability and
performance...any feedback in regards to that would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks!
So far, GFS has worked quite well under our tests. We have yet to have
it break. Our current GFS implementation is only on two nodes with gulm
running on a separate lock server. I intend to update the kernels on
those nodes sometime this week (to the 2.6.11 variety) and change the
locking from gulm to cman (since that seems to be fixed at this point).
Again not too sure about the different locking mechanisms .. do you mean
cman/dlm? will this work better for you?
Currently we use cman to do the LVM locking/clustering stuff and gulm
to do the GFS locking as cman wasn't reliable handling GFS. The gods
that write the stuff now tell me that cman can handle GFS properly, so
I'm going to give it a whirl.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer rstevens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
- VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com -
- -
- You know the old saying--any technology sufficiently advanced is -
- indistinguishable from a Perl script -
- --Programming Perl, 2nd Edition -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
