> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-boun...@redhat.com > [mailto:linux-cluster-boun...@redhat.com] > On Behalf Of Nicolas Ross > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:40 PM > > For availibility reasons, we are planing of spliting the /CyberCat (and the > other one like > it) FS into several smaller filesystems, one for each service.
[snip] > 1. First of all, is this a bad idea ? Right or wrong, that's how we do it. Apart from availability, you can tune the fs appropriately depending on how you use it. GFS2 dropped some tunables, I think, but you can still mount with "noatime" (assuming your application doesn't rely on atime) and tune some things like block size. Some of our GFS filesystems are also read-only on certain nodes, so we take advantage of spectator mounts for those. > 2. Is there any disadvantages of doing a single volume group composed of many > physical volumes, enabling us to move the extents of a logical volume from one > physical volume to another one, so that load is more balanced in the event we > need it. Can't say, really. We ditched CLVM but kept GFS. It felt like CLVM had too many limitations to make it worthwhile. It was straightforward to just export a LUN from our SAN for each file system, and that allows us to take advantage of the SAN's native snapshot facility. -Jeff -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
