FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-10-2010, 03:48 PM
Boris Epstein
 
Default GFS/GFS2 on CentOS

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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-10-2010, 03:53 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default GFS/GFS2 on CentOS

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
 
Old 08-31-2010, 09:12 PM
Boris Epstein
 
Default GFS/GFS2 on CentOS

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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-31-2010, 09:32 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default GFS/GFS2 on CentOS

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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-31-2010, 09:36 PM
Boris Epstein
 
Default GFS/GFS2 on CentOS

>
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 08-31-2010, 09:49 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default GFS/GFS2 on CentOS

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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org