Hi,
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 13:31 -0800, Scooter Morris wrote:
Greetings,
We've got a two-node cluster running RHEL 5.1 that we've been
experimenting with and have discovered a problem with gfs2. As part of
our build environment, we have some find scripts that walk a directory tree:
Jos Vos wrote:
The one thing that's horribly wrong in some applications is performance.
If you need to have large amounts of files and frequent directory scans
(i.e. rsync etc.), you're lost.
On GFS(1) part, the glock trimming patch
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 12:56:12PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
On GFS(1) part, the glock trimming patch
(http://people.redhat.com/wcheng/Patches/GFS/readme.gfs_glock_trimming.R4)
was developed for customers with rsync issues. Field data have shown
positive results. It is released on RHEL
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jos Vos wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 01:31:59PM -0800, Scooter Morris wrote:
Is this a known bug in gfs2? Is there something we could do to help
find this problem?
I assume you know GFS2 is still in technology preview status and
officially not meant for production
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Scooter Morris wrote:
Is this a known bug in gfs2? Is there something we could do to help
find this problem?
I assume you know GFS2 is still in technology preview status and
officially not meant for production use?
Yes, I am aware of that. We're not looking to
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:23:57AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was supposed to be stable in RHEL5.1. Not that I believed
it, but it seemed to be implied.
This was suggested during the 5.0 release, but the release notes of
5.1 say something different.
--
--Jos Vos [EMAIL
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jos Vos wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 01:45:56PM -0800, Scooter Morris wrote:
Yes, I am aware of that. We're not looking to put things into
production on this cluster for awhile. However, are you telling me that
GFS2 is just flat unstable or not yet thoroughly tested?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:27:42AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect you'll find it isn't usable even for a working prototype of any
description. Stick to GFS1, there's nothing wrong with it.
The one thing that's horribly wrong in some applications is performance.
If you need to have
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Jos Vos wrote:
I suspect you'll find it isn't usable even for a working prototype of any
description. Stick to GFS1, there's nothing wrong with it.
The one thing that's horribly wrong in some applications is performance.
If you need to have large amounts of files and
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 01:45:56PM -0800, Scooter Morris wrote:
Yes, I am aware of that. We're not looking to put things into
production on this cluster for awhile. However, are you telling me that
GFS2 is just flat unstable or not yet thoroughly tested? If the former,
then I won't
Jos Vos wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 01:31:59PM -0800, Scooter Morris wrote:
Is this a known bug in gfs2? Is there something we could do to help
find this problem?
I assume you know GFS2 is still in technology preview status and
officially not meant for production use?
Yes, I
11 matches
Mail list logo
