> 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. > i am not! I did a lot of benckmarking with bonnie++ on a 450 GB filesystem. i was testing ext3, gfs2, and gfs ext3 is obviously the fastest, but i nees a clustered file system, so it was only teken as a "best measure". Then i tried gfs2 and gfs, with one, two and three server writing with bonnie++ at the same time. The result showed gfs2 better than gfs in almost every bonnie++ test, and it was close enought to ext3 to use it. But always think that is a clustered filesystem! Then now i wait for your result on a bigger 8TB fs. -- mr -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
