> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vikash > Khatuwala > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:23 AM > To: linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: GFS performance. > > OS : CentOS 5.2 > FS : GFS Can you easily install CentOS 5.3 and GFS2? GFS2 claims to have some performance improvements over GFS1. > Now I need to make a decision to go with GFS or not, clearly > at 4 times less performance we cannot afford it, also it > doesn't sound right so would like to find out whats wrong. Be careful with benchmarks, as they often do not give you a good indication of real-world performance. Are you more concerned with latency or throughput? Any single read will almost certainly take longer to complete over GFS than EXT3. There's simply more overhead involved with any cluster filesystem. However, that's not to say you're limited as to how many reads you can execute in parallel. So the overall number of reads you can perform in a given time interval may not be 4x at all (are you running a parallel benchmark?) Jeff -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
