[Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes
Brian Long
brilong at cisco.com
Mon Dec 4 11:46:07 PST 2006
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 18:31 +0000, HAWKER, Dan wrote:
> >
> >
> > I suppose it is a matter of personal preference, as well as
> > what you are trying to accomplish. GFS requires redhat
> > cluster suite, which is a full blown cluster set up. You
> > don't have to set it up like that, you can do a minimal setup
> > which will only do a filesystem share, but its still a lot of
> > complexity, multiple lock managers and things. I prefer the
> > way OCFS2 is setup, where the setup is a little less
> > invasive, but the setup is the same. I only have a need for
> > a shared file system, I don't have a cluster-aware
> > application, nor does it need to be. So for me, OCFS2 was
> > the way to go.
> >
> Hi Ernest,
>
> What kind of files are you serving up from you OCFS2 shared filesystem and
> the services that access it??? Am in the process of deciding on a Cluster FS
> for a mixed development network here, and although I like the lack of
> complexity in OCFS2 (as you have rightly mentioned, its much simpler than
> GFS), I am more concerned with performance, as OCFS2 is more targetted
> (obviously) at database access rather than as a regular filesystem. Most of
> my guys will be developing code (directly via ssh, eclipse, etc) on a series
> of servers that will directly access the shared filesystem.
If the servers don't need to access the storage as a block device, why
not just NAS / NFS? That reduces the complexity even further. :)
/Brian/
--
Brian Long | |
IT Infrastructure . | | | . | | | .
Data Center Systems ' '
Cisco Enterprise Linux C I S C O
More information about the Ocfs2-users
mailing list