On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:54:18 +0100 Corey Kovacs <corey.kovacs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > However, I've come to the realization that at this time it's simply > not reasonable to expect the same performance from GFS2 as my current > setup. I have even been told from RedHat support that our use case > (general purpose file server with applications and home dirs along > with some data thrown in isn't really a good fit for using GFS2. Not > sure I agree with that or even understand the motivation behind the > comment but I am passed that now. The simple truth is for our > purposes, I think he may be right and I am now exploring the idea of > using ha-lvm with ext3. I'd not set ip up before this past week and I > have to say it looks promising. Rsyncs, directories with lots of > files etc. all behave as I expect them to, fast. Why are you using HA-LVM instead of CLVM? Is there any particular reason? PS.: We too dumped GFS/GFS2 everywhere where we don't need the simultaneous access from more than one node at a time, also because of the performance. -- | Jakov Sosic | ICQ: 28410271 | PGP: 0x965CAE2D | ================================================================= | start fighting cancer -> http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ | -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
