Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
For bugs related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 product line. The current stable release is 5.10. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and above, please visit Red Hat JIRA https://issues.redhat.com/secure/CreateIssue!default.jspa?pid=12332745 to report new issues.

Bug 639071

Summary: GFS1 vs GFS2 performance issue [rhel-5.4.z]
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: RHEL Program Management <pm-rhel>
Component: kernelAssignee: Jiri Pirko <jpirko>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Cluster QE <mspqa-list>
Severity: urgent Docs Contact:
Priority: urgent    
Version: 5.3CC: adas, bmarson, bmarzins, brsmith, casmith, cww, dhoward, djansa, hjia, iannis, jpirko, jwilleford, kai, pm-eus, rkhan, rpeterso, rwheeler, scooter, swhiteho, tao, teigland, ttracy, yugzhang
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: ZStream
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: kernel-2.6.18-164.29.1.el5 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
In a two node cluster, moving 100 files between two folders using the lock master was nearly instantaneous. However, not using the lock master resulted in a considerably worse performance on both, GFS1 (Global File System 1) and GFS2 (Global File System 2) file systems. With this update, not using the lock master does not lead to worsened performance on either of the aforementioned file systems.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-23 15:19:37 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 504188    
Bug Blocks:    

Description RHEL Program Management 2010-09-30 18:35:37 UTC
This bug has been copied from bug #504188 and has been proposed
to be backported to 5.4 z-stream (EUS).

Comment 5 Jiri Pirko 2010-10-25 18:34:09 UTC
in kernel 2.6.18-164.29.1.el5

linux-2.6-fs-dlm-fix-try-1cb-failure-part-2.patch
linux-2.6-fs-dlm-no-node-callback-when-try-1cb-lock-req-fails.patch

Comment 7 Martin Prpič 2010-11-16 11:40:46 UTC
    Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    New Contents:
In a two node cluster, the lock master of two folders can move 100 files from one folder to the other in less than 1 second. If a server is not the lock master for that folder, it would take that server 3-5 seconds to perform the same task on GFS1 (Global File System 1), and 30-50 seconds on GFS2 (Global File System 2). With this update, the aforementioned task takes less than 1 second on GFS1 and about 3 seconds on GFS2.

Comment 8 Hushan Jia 2010-11-17 04:28:03 UTC
Confirmed patch are in, and the same as rhel5 main stream patch, set sanityonly for GFS bug.

Comment 9 Martin Prpič 2010-11-19 14:46:05 UTC
    Technical note updated. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    Diffed Contents:
@@ -1 +1 @@
-In a two node cluster, the lock master of two folders can move 100 files from one folder to the other in less than 1 second. If a server is not the lock master for that folder, it would take that server 3-5 seconds to perform the same task on GFS1 (Global File System 1), and 30-50 seconds on GFS2 (Global File System 2). With this update, the aforementioned task takes less than 1 second on GFS1 and about 3 seconds on GFS2.+In a two node cluster, moving 100 files between two folders using the lock master was nearly instantaneous. However, not using the lock master resulted in a considerably worse performance on both, GFS1 (Global File System 1) and GFS2 (Global File System 2) file systems. With this update, not using the lock master does not lead to worsened performance on either of the aforementioned file systems.

Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2010-11-23 15:19:37 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2010-0907.html