Hi, On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 00:35 -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote: > Lin Shen (lshen) wrote: > > >We have a situation that we may need to use GFS2 to share storage in our > >system in the future and to ease the pain of transition at that time > >(convert files into GFS), we're thinking of using GFS2 just as a local > >file system for now. > > > >How is GFS2 compared to other popular local file systems such as ext3 > >and Reiser in terms of performance, overhead etc? Are we hitting the > >wrong direction totally by using GFS2 just as a local file system? > > > >BTW, we've run bonnie on local GFS2, and the performance is decent > >compared to ext3 (90%). > > > > > > > > > I personally think using GFS (both GFS1 and GFS2) as a local filesystem > has many advantages. The only issue (I think ..haven't checked mkfs code > in ages) is lock protocol is hard coded into on-disk super block during > mkfs time - but fixing this should be trivial. If we allow > interchangeable between lock_nolock and lock_dlm, then the filesystem > should be able to migrate from single node into cluster environment. It > is very nice (IMHO). > You can override the settings in the sb on the mount command line, Steve. -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
