gordan@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I think a part of the problem is perception. Clustering in most cases
leads to _LOWER_ performance on I/O bound processes. If it's CPU
bound, then sure, it'll help. But on I/O it'll likely do you harm.
It's more about redundancy and graceful degradation than performance.
There's no way of getting away from the fact that a cluster has to do
more work than a single node, just because it has to keep itself in sync.
The only way clustering will give you scaleable performance benefit is
with partitioned (as opposed to shared) data. Shared data clustering
is about convenience and redundancy, not about performance.
Well said ! This reminds me some of previous conversations with
customers in mid-90 when people started to port their applications from
supercomputers and/or big SMP boxes into clustered machines. It had
taken non-trivial amount of collaborative efforts between the customers
and the team's application enablement group to achieve the expected
performance when moving applications between different platforms. Be
aware that cluster management and its associated performance tuning is
really not a trivial task. It is kind of hard to give a "catch-all"
advice in a mailing list, particularly we have been participating the
discussions on our spare time basis.
-- Wendy
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
