Hi all,
If you have had experience hosting GFS/GFS2 on CentOS machines could you share you general impression on it? Was it realiable? Fast? Any issues or concerns?
Also, how feasible is it to start it on just one machine and then grow it out if necessary?
Thanks.
Boris.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Boris Epstein wrote:
Hi all,
If you have had experience hosting GFS/GFS2 on CentOS machines could you share you general impression on it? Was it realiable? Fast? Any issues or concerns?
I've only run GFS2 on RHEL5. It's been quite reliable, but certainly has a bit of a learning curve from regular filesystems.
It's fast enough, but if you have more than one node, keep in mind you'll potentially be held back by lock manager contention under certain workloads (like reading information on every inode on the system for backup purposes, etc).
For our uses (home directory server), it's more than adequate.
Also, how feasible is it to start it on just one machine and then grow it out if necessary?
Haven't yet done this, but it can run on top of LVM just fine (clvm in fact).
Thanks.
Boris.
Ray
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ray Van Dolson rayvd@bludgeon.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Boris Epstein wrote:
Hi all,
If you have had experience hosting GFS/GFS2 on CentOS machines could you share you general impression on it? Was it realiable? Fast? Any issues or concerns?
I've only run GFS2 on RHEL5. It's been quite reliable, but certainly has a bit of a learning curve from regular filesystems.
It's fast enough, but if you have more than one node, keep in mind you'll potentially be held back by lock manager contention under certain workloads (like reading information on every inode on the system for backup purposes, etc).
For our uses (home directory server), it's more than adequate.
Also, how feasible is it to start it on just one machine and then grow it out if necessary?
Haven't yet done this, but it can run on top of LVM just fine (clvm in fact).
Thanks.
Boris.
Ray _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks Ray!
Is it feasible to export GFS to NFS clients?
And one more interesting thing. Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_File_System ) says that GFS2 is supported only starting at kernel 2.6.19 but on my CentOS 5.5 uname says:
[bepstein@dellnikon ~]$ uname -a Linux dellnikon 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Fri Apr 2 14:58:35 EDT 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [bepstein@dellnikon ~]$
Could thins be a problem?
Boris.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 05:12:24PM -0400, Boris Epstein wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ray Van Dolson rayvd@bludgeon.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Boris Epstein wrote:
Hi all,
If you have had experience hosting GFS/GFS2 on CentOS machines could you share you general impression on it? Was it realiable? Fast? Any issues or concerns?
I've only run GFS2 on RHEL5. It's been quite reliable, but certainly has a bit of a learning curve from regular filesystems.
It's fast enough, but if you have more than one node, keep in mind you'll potentially be held back by lock manager contention under certain workloads (like reading information on every inode on the system for backup purposes, etc).
For our uses (home directory server), it's more than adequate.
Also, how feasible is it to start it on just one machine and then grow it out if necessary?
Haven't yet done this, but it can run on top of LVM just fine (clvm in fact).
Thanks.
Boris.
Ray _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks Ray!
Is it feasible to export GFS to NFS clients?
Yup, this is exactly what we do (export GFS2 to NFS clients).
And one more interesting thing. Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_File_System ) says that GFS2 is supported only starting at kernel 2.6.19 but on my CentOS 5.5 uname says:
[bepstein@dellnikon ~]$ uname -a Linux dellnikon 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Fri Apr 2 14:58:35 EDT 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [bepstein@dellnikon ~]$
Could thins be a problem?
Nope, Red Hat backports the necessary bits from the newer kernels into their 2.6.18 "stable" release, so you should be all set.
Ray
Nope, Red Hat backports the necessary bits from the newer kernels into their 2.6.18 "stable" release, so you should be all set.
Ray _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This is interesting... What's the rationale for that? Why not advance the version numbers if you incorporate the newer features anyhow?
Boris.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Boris Epstein wrote:
Nope, Red Hat backports the necessary bits from the newer kernels into their 2.6.18 "stable" release, so you should be all set.
Ray _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This is interesting... What's the rationale for that? Why not advance the version numbers if you incorporate the newer features anyhow?
Boris.
The main reason would be to preserve ABI stability over the lifetime of the release while still being able to introduce selected new features and to address security concerns.
Fairly typical of any Enterprise OS (Solaris 10, etc).
Ray
-
Boris Epstein -
Ray Van Dolson