oh, thats good to hear :-) Multiple lock_nolock nodes would be... interesting... However, you are saying you want to compare the performance of GFS with the performance of iSCSI. GFS is a filesystem, iSCSI is a block level device. May I ask how you intend to "compare" the performance of the two? Erling On 3/9/06, Hong Zheng <hong.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I understand no_lock won't work for multiple nodes, so I never mount GFS > w/ no_lock to multiple nodes, our cluster is two-node active-passive > cluster. So every time only active node has GFS mount. I could use iSCSI > disk only, but just want to test if GFS has better performance than > iSCSI. > > Hong > > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erling Nygaard > Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:52 PM > To: linux clustering > Subject: Re: Cluster service restarting Locally > > I am sorry if this sounds a little harsh, but I'm not sure if laughing > or crying is the correct reaction to this email. > > Let us get one thing straight. > You are currently mounting a GFS filesystem _concurrently_ on multiple > nodes using lock_nolock? > > If this is the case I can tell you that this will _not_ work. You > _will_ corrupt your filesystem. > > Mounting a GFS filesystem with lock_nolock for all practical purposes > turns the GFS filesystem into a local filesystem. There is _no_ > locking done anymore. > With this setup there is no longer any coordination done among the > nodes to control the filesystem access, so they are all going to step > on each others toes. > You might as well use ext3, the end result will be the same ;-) > > The purpose of lock_nolock is to (temporarily) be able to mount a GFS > filesystem on a single node in such cases where the entire locking > infrastructure is unavailable. (Something like a massive cluster > failure) > > So you should really look into setting up one of the lock services :-) > > E. > > > > > > > On 3/9/06, Hong Zheng <hong.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Lon, > > > > Thanks for your reply. In my system I don't use any lock system like > > lock_gulm or lock_dlm, I use no_lock because our applications' > > limitation. Do you think no_lock will also bring some lock traffic or > > not? When I tried lock_gulm before, our application had very bad > > performance, so I choose no_lock. > > > > And I'm not sure which update we have right now. Do you know the > > versions for clumanager and redhat-config-cluster of RHCS3U7? > > > > Hong > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lon Hohberger > > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:52 PM > > To: linux clustering > > Subject: RE: Cluster service restarting Locally > > > > On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 14:02 -0600, Hong Zheng wrote: > > > I'm having the same problem. My system configuration is as follows: > > > > > > 2-node cluster: RH ES3, GFS6.0, clumanager-1.2.28-1 and > > > redhat-config-cluster-1.0.8-1 > > > > > > Kernel: 2.4.21-37.EL > > > > > > Linux-iscsi-3.6.3 initiator: connections to iSCSI shared storage > > > server > > > > If it's not fixed in U7 (which I think it should be), please file a > > bugzilla... It sounds like the lock traffic is getting > network-starved. > > > > -- Lon > > > > > > -- > > > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > > > > > -- > > > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > > > > -- > - > Mac OS X. Because making Unix user-friendly is easier than debugging > Windows > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- - Mac OS X. Because making Unix user-friendly is easier than debugging Windows -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
