On Jan 28, 2008 2:11 AM, Gordan Bobic <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rainer Duffner wrote: > > > > Am 28.01.2008 um 02:36 schrieb Terry: > > > >> > >> > >> Good questions: > >> 1) Do you have concurrent writes to the same file from different nodes? > >> 1a) No > > > > > > Well, that's one of the things GFS is good at ;-) > > > > > >> 2) How many nodes do you have? > >> 2a) 3 to start, probably won't go beyond 12 > >> > > OK, that's still in the range GFS can handle (AFAIK). > > With an order of magnitude room for growth left. > > >> I appreciate alternative ideas to NFS. NFS could possibly introduce > >> performance issues (comments here appreciated). > > > > > > One problem might be that NFS was never supposed to run on GBit-networks. > > Thus there is overhead. > > But, OTOH, the vendors I mentioned have managed to squeeze a lot of > > performance out of NFS. > > It's also a question of optimizing/matching NFS clients and servers. > > I've found that NFS v3 over UDP with large rsize,wsize and jumbo frames > works pretty well. > > >> The majority of the > >> system is write. I would say 80%. > >> > > > > Do you have a lot of small files? > > Small files are usually what degrades GFS-performance. > > I don't think small files are what kills it, it's lots of files that > slow things down. > > Gordan In an active-standby NFS cluster scenario, is GFS still required as the format for the data drives? I would be using a 2 node cluster so I would need a quorum disk too. Since only 1 node will have access at any one time, could I get away with ext3 (or whatever) formatted volumes? Along the same note, I am going to ask an obvious question and answer it myself. :) In an active-active, this would definitely need to be GFS formatted, correct? Thanks! -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
