[Linux-cluster] GFS slower than NFS ???

[Robinson Maureira Castillo]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rainer Duffner wrote:
> 
> GFS is supposed to have a smaller overhead, compared to NFS.
> However, I'm not sure this pays out in case a maildir-mailstorage is
> clustered.

In my personal experience using GFS on RHEL4 vs NFS, is that GFS
outperforms NFS on a mail system, both using maildir and mbox style
mailboxes.

The email software we're using is CommuniGate Pro, which doesn't do any
locking at filesystem level.

Under heavy use, in a 5TB (split on 5 mountpoints) filesystem, we
experienced a drop on WIO from ~90% to 60% using maildir, and then to
~45% when we switched to mbox.

One important tip with GFS is to disable quota (noquota mount flag) if
you don't need it, it saves a good amount of resources.

Best regards,
Rob.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGk6Rbu+2kmA0sEb4RAvqnAJ4k6ae/Z8mBu18VADxCKD8j1aoyFwCfYzAc
IQiVYHZTil8mNLWBnbzu8bI=
=uESK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----