<div dir="ltr">I think OCFS2 is slightly better.<div><br></div><div>Listen - if you don't need clustered filesystem, avoid it at any cost. However, if you do need it, then A/P cluster is not enough.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Ez<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Amos Shapira <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amos.shapira@gmail.com">amos.shapira@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">2010/8/22 Etzion Bar-Noy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ezaton@tournament.org.il" target="_blank">ezaton@tournament.org.il</a>></span><div class="im"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Indeed. <div>The easiest to implement, amongst the free clustered filesystems is OCFS2 by Oracle. Two or three RPMs, a short configuration phase, and you're fine.</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>
How is its performance?<br>
<br>GFS comes as part of RHEL/CentOS base, so nothing special needs to be done to work with it.<br><br>We tested it on a Fiber-Channel EMC SAN device, compared it to plain ext3 and xfs (yes we know that GFS is the only clustered one) and found that the performance hit too high to ignore.<br>
<br>We ended up going back to ext3 and making sure only one guest mounts the filesystem at a time (that's what we need for our application anyway).<br><br>--Amos<br><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>