Riaan van Niekerk wrote:
Wendy Cheng wrote:
Riaan van Niekerk wrote:
My question to you or anyone who is familiar with NFS on GFS, or GFS
in general, which of the following are still valid issues for the
current (6.1u4) version of GFS. If all or most of them still apply,
I can use this as motivation for my customer to strongly consider
going off NFS on GFS. Removing the NFS from our GFS cluster has been
on the cards for quite a while, but has not gained momentum due to
lack of information on the performance gains of such a move (very
difficult to gage) or the architectural problems/limitations of NFS
on GFS (for which the following extract is spot-on).
These have been worked on and some of them do have test patches ready
to address the issues. However, the changes are non-trivial and may
involve base kernel modifiction that we need to get upstream
(community linux kernel) acceptance. The efforts take time since we
would like to do it conservatively to preserve GFS1/2 stability.
Unless the posted problems have urgent needs (let us know), the
current NFS-GFS development focus is on failover (Red Hat bugzilla
132823).
Is performance the primary concern you have now ?
-- Wendy
Yes, mostly. We have a couple of open service requests for stability.
They are very intermittent and not reproduceable (and nothing in
bugzilla seems to match):
All four issues mentioned are still present in RHEL 3/4 and most of them
are not GFS specific. As long as it is a cluster filesystem beneath
linux's nfsd, these issues exist.
I don't plan to defend for NFS - it has inherited problems by its
nature. Moving to GFS natively is good from performance point of view
(one layer less). However, I would suggest you do make some efforts to
understand the problems before taking any significant changes.
Do you have Red Hat support ticket numbers for the mentioned problems
that I can take a look ?
-- Wendy
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
