This brings up an interesting question for me....We can 6 machines that
host a bunch of virtual machines. I'd like to put the virtual machines
on a shared SAN disk. If one of the physical machines goes down,
another one will take over and host a virtual machine.
Does it make sense to use GFS to manage the SAN then? IF the 4x
slowdown is there, then this may not be the way to go.
Jeff Sturm wrote:
-----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
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
