<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.2"> <TITLE>One big GFS or a handful of smaller ones?</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED With CLVM on top of a couple of SAN volumes, I can grow the underlying VG and LVs. Say I want HOME, VMImage, APPS, and CONTENT all on GFS so every node can share. Is there a locking benefit or a performance benefit by having one big LV (and therefore one GFS filesystem) with subdirectories to organize things versus having multiple LVs each formatted GFS? In other words, each node can have 1 or 4 GFS mounts. Kicking a node over means 1 or alternatively all 4 GFS filesystems have to go into recovery. At first blush the latter doesn't sound like a very good idea with more things to go wrong and time out etc. Or is having multiple GFS mounts really not so bad and the ability to selectively grow/shrink and unmount a filesystem a quite useful benefit? thoughts? </BODY> </HTML>