[Linux-cluster] is it possible an active-active NFS server?

[ESGLinux]

Hi Gordan,

first thanks for your answer and your time



>
> Whether it will scale is dependant almost exclusively on your access
> pattern. If you can group your cluster file system accesses so that nodes
> hardly ever access the same file system subtrees then it will scale
> reasonably well. If you are going to have nodes randomly accessing the file
> system paths, then the performance will take a nosedive, and get
> progressively slower as you add nodes.
>
> This will scale linearly:
> Node 1 accessing /my/path/1/whatever
> Node 2 accessing /my/path/2/whatever
>
> This will scale inversely (get slower):
> Node 1 accessing /my/path
> Node 2 accessing /my/path
>
> Cluster file systems are generally slower at random access than standalone
> file systems, so you are likely to find that having a standalone failover
> (active-passive) solution is faster than a clustered active-active solution,
> especially as you add nodes.
>

interesting, I suposse that active-active will be faster...



>
> So the question really comes down to access patterns. If you are going to
> have random access to lots of small files (e.g. Maildir), the performance
> will be poor to start with and get worse as you add nodes unless you can
> engineer your solution so that access for a particular subtree always hits
> the same node. OTOH for large file operations, the bandwidth will be more
> dominant than random access lock acquisition time, so the performance will
> be OK and scale reasonably as you add nodes.
>
>
ok, understood, I´ll try to know the access paterns to get the best solution


> Note that this isn't something specific to GFS - pretty much all cluster
> file systems behave this way.
>
>


> Gordan
>
>
> Grettings

ESG



> --
> 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/20100629/3be8e396/attachment.htm>