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 > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster >
-- Linux-cluster mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
