Hi Steve, we're going to start our tests today by switch some nodes to the new kernel version. I'll keep you updated. Juergen -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Steven Whitehouse Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Jänner 2014 13:06 An: Dan Riley Cc: linux clustering Betreff: Re: GFS2 and kernel 2.6.32-431 Hi, On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 19:58 -0500, Dan Riley wrote: > On Jan 20, 2014, at 5:21 AM, Jürgen Ladstätter <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > is anyone running gfs2 with kernel version 2.6.32-431 yet? 358 was unusable due to bugs, 279 was working quite well. Anyone tested the new 431? Is it stable enough for a productive environment? > > 358 actually works okay for us, so YMMV. 431 we found to be unusable under heavy load--any kind of backup-like activity would cause large load fluctuations, high glock_workqueue activity, and frequent fencings. The one cluster where we rely heavily on GFS2 lasted 5 days (with ~8 fencings) on 431 before we backed off to 358. Dunno when we'll have the time to investigate further, we do need a better simulation of our production loads on our test cluster. > > -dan > > Do let us know what you find... I'm not aware of any issues relating to changes in behaviour under heavy load in recent kernels, other than an improvement in some specific cases. If you have a Red Hat support contract then please do contact our support team in the first instance, since they should be able to assist in resolving this kind of thing, Steve. -- 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
