[Linux-cluster] gfs2 performance
Kraska, Joe A (US SSA)
joe.kraska at baesystems.com
Mon Jul 14 22:08:26 UTC 2008
I have to admit confusion here.
GFS2 is a shared file system. EXT3 is not.
I would expect shared file systems to always have at least somewhat
worse performance than a local
file system, for a variety of reasons... in particular the network, eh.
Anyway, I'm curious about the status of GFS2, including: how well
/ought/ it be working at this point?
From: linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of eric johnson
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:31 PM
To: linux clustering
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] gfs2 performance
Hi Ozgur -
It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on the domain of problems
were hoping to have GFS2 solve and then how you ultimately tackled them
with just EXT3.
I'm certainly not saying that one can't solve them with EXT3 - just
to see the approach.
2008/7/14 Ozgur Akan <ozgurakan at gmail.com>:
Unfortunately, we formatted 8TB volume with EXT3 and finally put it into
I am really disappointed with GFS2 performance, it is not fast enough
for large file systems with many files. On the other hand we still use
GFS for a 350gb partition with low IO. GFS has many good promises but
only for some specific environments with probably low IO, small number
of files etc..
I think it can never be as fast as EXT3 because if its design and
targets but something close would make us more than happy.
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Linux-cluster