[Linux-cluster] I/O scheduler and performance

y f yfttyfs at gmail.com
Wed Jul 12 04:22:50 UTC 2006

planty of little files (say KBs) on a very large datapool (say PBs) as
gmail's storage ?

On 7/5/06, RR <ranjtech at gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
> I'm not sure if what I'm about to ask is relevant to this discussion
> but because of the brief explanation Wendy has here (which I did know
> a bit of from before) re-inforced the question in mind to confirm one
> way or the other.
> The question is, does anyone on this list think that for an
> application which "MAY" have just as many simultaneous reads to the
> same filesystem (almost never in the same folders however) by multiple
> nodes as it has writes, using a database to store information instead
> of using a clustered file system ala GFS is a better solution??
> In short, I can either store and read these sound files from a SAN
> with a layer of GFS running over it (in which case the performance
> will depend on the efficiency and nature of GFS implementation) OR I
> could store these same files in a database over an ODBC connection.
> Note that this databases are enterprise grade, clustered and attached
> to the SAN via high performance HBAs.
> Any comments and/or advice would be greatly appreciated.
> Best Regards,
> \R
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20060712/51dcbc69/attachment.htm>

More information about the Linux-cluster mailing list