[Linux-cluster] Re: [Ocfs2-users] GFS2/OCFS2 scalability

Sunil Mushran sunil.mushran at oracle.com
Sat Feb 21 01:59:01 UTC 2009

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2009  20:23 +0300, Kirill Kuvaldin wrote:
>> I'm evaluating different cluster file systems that can work with large
>> clustered environment, e.g. hundreds of nodes connected to a SAN over
>> FC.
>>  So far I looked at OCFS2 and GFS2, they both worked nearly the same
>> in terms of performance, but since I ran my tests in a local limited
>> environment with 4 nodes in a cluster, the results can't be
>> extrapolated to 100 nodes.
>> Is there any reading on comparison of OCFS2/GFS2 scalability? And
>> could these FS scale up to environment of that size (100-1000 nodes,
>> 10-100Tb storage) or should I look to proprietary solutions like IBM
>> GPFS, HP Polyserve, etc... ?
> I'm fairly biased, but I think you should look at Lustre - it is currently
> running on 15 of the 20 fastest systems in the world, and 40% of the top 200.
> No problems with scalability at all - the ORNL Jaguar system has 37000+
> nodes, 10PB of storage, and has exceeded 150GB/s peak read/write speed.
> Lustre is GPL and freely available: http://www.lustre.org/

I am fairly biased too. However, I don't believe any shared disk cluster 
system can scale upto 1000 nodes. This includes ocfs2 and gfs2. I don't know
much about gpfs to comment.

Lustre is parallel distributed and not shared disk. It can scale to 1000s of
nodes but it requires more hardware commitment. Different data and meta data
servers, for starters. But if you want 1000 nodes, then it makes sense to
invest in that kind of hardware.

But I am a bit puzzled by your statement that ocfs2 and gfs2 perform
similarly. That can't be. Everyone knows ocfs2 beats gfs2 hands down. ;)


Ocfs2-users mailing list
Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com

More information about the Linux-cluster mailing list