Hello, I'd also like to throw my hat in as a willing tester of OCFS 1.2.4, if possible. My systems seem to be ok, but much like everyone else, I seem to run out of low memory and then the OOM killer does its job. Also, I saw in a kernel changelog that the official kernel has extended attributes (chattr +I and the like, for making a file immutable). Will this also be available in 1.2.4 or a later revision? Any chance filesystem ACLs are also on the list? Not strictly necessary, but would be nice to have! Thanks to all the devs for this project, I'm very happy it with it, and much prefer it to GFS.
Hello Ernest, Can you say, why you prefer OCFS over GFS? Greetings Bernd -----Original Message----- From: Cline, Ernest Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:38 PM To: ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com Subject: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes ... Thanks to all the devs for this project, I'm very happy it with it, and much prefer it to GFS.
So we hope to pre-release 1.2.4 next week. The main patch looks ready. We are adding one more small patch to it. Fingers crossed. Extended Attrs is being targetted for 1.4... sometime next year. Cline, Ernest wrote:> Hello, I'd also like to throw my hat in as a willing tester of OCFS > 1.2.4, if possible. My systems seem to be ok, but much like everyone > else, I seem to run out of low memory and then the OOM killer does its > job. > > Also, I saw in a kernel changelog that the official kernel has extended > attributes (chattr +I and the like, for making a file immutable). Will > this also be available in 1.2.4 or a later revision? Any chance > filesystem ACLs are also on the list? Not strictly necessary, but would > be nice to have! > > Thanks to all the devs for this project, I'm very happy it with it, and > much prefer it to GFS. > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-users mailing list > Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users >
Hmm, not _everyoe else_ - never saw OOM on my SLES9 servers. But I have moderate OCFSv2 traffic (never used it for heavy loaded file systems). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cline, Ernest" <Ernest.Cline@petersons.com> To: <ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:37 AM Subject: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes Hello, I'd also like to throw my hat in as a willing tester of OCFS 1.2.4, if possible. My systems seem to be ok, but much like everyone else, I seem to run out of low memory and then the OOM killer does its job. Also, I saw in a kernel changelog that the official kernel has extended attributes (chattr +I and the like, for making a file immutable). Will this also be available in 1.2.4 or a later revision? Any chance filesystem ACLs are also on the list? Not strictly necessary, but would be nice to have! Thanks to all the devs for this project, I'm very happy it with it, and much prefer it to GFS. _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-users mailing list Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
Awesome, glad to hear it Sunil. -----Original Message----- From: Sunil Mushran [mailto:Sunil.Mushran@oracle.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:11 PM To: Cline, Ernest Cc: ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes So we hope to pre-release 1.2.4 next week. The main patch looks ready. We are adding one more small patch to it. Fingers crossed. Extended Attrs is being targetted for 1.4... sometime next year. Cline, Ernest wrote:> Hello, I'd also like to throw my hat in as a willing tester of OCFS > 1.2.4, if possible. My systems seem to be ok, but much like everyone > else, I seem to run out of low memory and then the OOM killer does its> job. > > Also, I saw in a kernel changelog that the official kernel has > extended attributes (chattr +I and the like, for making a file > immutable). Will this also be available in 1.2.4 or a later revision?> Any chance filesystem ACLs are also on the list? Not strictly > necessary, but would be nice to have! > > Thanks to all the devs for this project, I'm very happy it with it, > and much prefer it to GFS. > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-users mailing list > Ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users >
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. -----Original Message----- From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:04 PM To: Cline, Ernest; ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com Subject: RE: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes Hello Ernest, Can you say, why you prefer OCFS over GFS? Greetings Bernd -----Original Message----- From: Cline, Ernest Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:38 PM To: ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com Subject: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes ... Thanks to all the devs for this project, I'm very happy it with it, and much prefer it to GFS.
> > > 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. What performance figures are you getting??? If OCFS2 is comparable to GFS (of course all have a performance penalty due to locks and things), I'd be willing to take a small hit for the ease of use. Regards Dan This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, do not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any purpose or disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and any attachments from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if this email transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
The system I am using OCFS2 for is for development, so the access is subversion checkins/outs, via samba (so users can use windows) and just hosting web files. The developers just use one system, because samba is not cluster aware, but the webserver side is load balanced, so this is a lot easier to do with shared file systems. I have found OCFS2 to be comperable to GFS and also not too bad compared to just direct disk access from a machine with local storage (although, the machine with local storage was much older, about 5 year old hardware, so not a great comparison, but for us, very tolerable). I thought the point of OCFS2 was a more general purpose cluster filesytem, with OCFS being for just database access? We also have an Oracle RAC instance that uses OCFS, but obviously, that is a requirement for RAC. From the OCFS2 project page: "Unlike the previous release (OCFS), OCFS2 is a general-purpose file system that can be used.." It does seem to work perfectly for serving webpages with apache, editing files via ssh/vi or eclipse mounted via a samba share. I would love the extended attributes, and ideally file system ACLs, but I can live without them. -----Original Message----- From: HAWKER, Dan [mailto:dan.hawker@astrium.eads.net] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:32 PM To: Cline, Ernest; ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com Subject: RE: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes 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. What performance figures are you getting??? If OCFS2 is comparable to GFS (of course all have a performance penalty due to locks and things), I'd be willing to take a small hit for the ease of use. Regards Dan
Well, then the NFS server would be a single point of failure. I have
multipathing on the external storage, so I could technically lose,
either a disk, a scsi cable, a controller card, or an entire server, and
everything keeps on trucking.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Long [mailto:brilong@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:46 PM
To: HAWKER, Dan
Cc: Cline, Ernest; ocfs2-users@oss.oracle.com
Subject: RE: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes
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
> > 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. :) >For a couple of reasons, mostly to do with failure prevention. As Ernest replied, with NFS you end up with a single point of failure. Unless you build in some NFS redundancy with failover. But again you are increasing complexity and cost (additional servers required as the redundant NFS heads). As some list members have mentioned this can be achieved (with a NetAPP NFS cluster or similar), but unfortunately that is not something we can really justify. So it seemed to make sense to allow the development servers to access a single central data repository, and hence my queries regarding the performance of OCFS2 with *regular* data over regular services (as if there is such a thing). Thanks for the replies and opinions, I guess I'll just have to do some testing of OCFS2 and GFS on my test rig :) Dan-- Dan Hawker Linux System Administrator Astrium -- This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, do not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any purpose or disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and any attachments from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if this email transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England