Re: [Xen-users] lustre clustre file system and xen 3

["Christopher G. Stach II" <cgs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Karsten Nielsen wrote:
> Mayby I frased my question wrong. I have read a lot on the mailing list
> about pros and cons of different ways to make the file backend avalible
> to multiple physical servers.
> 
> But it seems that there are no real good answer to that question as fare
> as I have read. There are pros and cons to every solution.
> 
> What I was looking for is a file backend that performs very well and is
> relayable.
> 
> If I want to use ocfs2 I cannot resize the file system.
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/ocfs2-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg00059.html)
> If I want to use GFS it's performence is not that great
> (http://guialivre.governoeletronico.gov.br/mediawiki/index.php/TesteGFSGraficoRaid10_ext3vsgfs
>   and
> http://guialivre.governoeletronico.gov.br/mediawiki/index.php/TestesGFS )
> 
> Mayby I am making this to complicated and should not worry about the
> lock system of clustre file systems what I am looking for is realy
> performance and relyability.
> 
> Any hints ?
> And why do you think that Lustre is at bad idea ?

I think Lustre is fine, although it's most likely overkill for just two
app servers.  DRBD is probably closer to what you want.  I think the
file backend portion is a bad idea.  It's a bad idea to unnecessarily
involve a filesystem cache.  Unless I had a very large cluster, I would
still probably use GFS.

-- 
Christopher G. Stach II

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users