I have to admit confusion here.
GFS2 is a shared file system. EXT3 is not.
I would expect shared file systems to always have at least
somewhat worse performance than a local
file system, for a variety of reasons… in particular the
network, eh.
Anyway, I'm curious about the status of GFS2, including: how
well /ought/ it be working at this point?
Joe.
From:
linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of eric johnson
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:31 PM
To: linux clustering
Subject: Re: gfs2 performance
Hi Ozgur -
It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on the domain of problems you
were hoping to have GFS2 solve and then how you ultimately tackled them
with just EXT3.
I'm certainly not saying that one can't solve them with EXT3 - just curious
to see the approach.
-Eric
2008/7/14 Ozgur Akan <ozgurakan@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi,
Unfortunately, we formatted 8TB volume with EXT3 and finally put it into
production.
I am really disappointed with GFS2 performance, it is not fast enough for large
file systems with many files. On the other hand we still use GFS for a 350gb
partition with low IO. GFS has many good promises but only for some specific
environments with probably low IO, small number of files etc..
I think it can never be as fast as EXT3 because if its design and targets but
something close would make us more than happy.
best wishes,
Ozgur Akan
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
