Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
just idly wondering what the IO would
be if NFS exporting the ext3 or gfs to the other node and running iozone on
2 such clients. There was no file contention was there? By that I mean each
instance of iozone was writing to a different directory (both on GFS) so
file-level read/write locking wasn't a factor. Presumably GFS locking is all
about keeping the filesystem meta-data intact. BTW, has anyone applied the
idea behind SoftUpdates to GFS? Say part of the heartbeat is a broadcast of the
meta-data changes so while data blocks might by written syncronously, not every
meta-change has to wait for the FC/array to commit it to disk before
continuing? I'm thinking of what we did for firewall-farm
syncronization which was 1xActive/NxPassive and they all could handle
each other's network traffic at any time should the current master drop off with
the only streams affected being those initiated since the last status update
message was sent out to the passive nodes.
Would it work such that the nodes
vote on a meta-master and all meta-data is kept in memory and then periodically
flushed? Because if each meta-change is broadcast and each node spools it to
local storage, then when it's time to elect a new master the nodes can consult
their transaction histories. Is there a good paper that describes the detailed
inner-workings of GFS aside from having to read all the code? So far I've found
this: https://open.datacore.ch/DCwiki.open/Wiki.jsp?page=GFS
-- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
