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? Joe. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 you 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 curious to see the approach. -Eric 2008/7/14 Ozgur Akan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi, Unfortunately, we formatted 8TB volume with EXT3 and finally put it into production. 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. best wishes, Ozgur Akan -- Linux-cluster mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
-- Linux-cluster mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
