Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 639071 - GFS1 vs GFS2 performance issue [rhel-5.4.z]
GFS1 vs GFS2 performance issue [rhel-5.4.z]
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
5.3
All Linux
urgent Severity urgent
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Jiri Pirko
Cluster QE
: ZStream
Depends On: 504188
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-09-30 14:35 EDT by RHEL Product and Program Management
Modified: 2018-10-27 08:47 EDT (History)
23 users (show)

See Also:
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 10:19:37 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2010:0907 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Important: kernel security and bug fix update 2010-11-23 10:19:19 EST

  None (edit)
Description RHEL Product and Program Management 2010-09-30 14:35:37 EDT
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 14:34:09 EDT
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 06:40:46 EST
    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 2010-11-16 23:28:03 EST
Confirmed patch are in, and the same as rhel5 main stream patch, set sanityonly for GFS bug.
Comment 9 Martin Prpič 2010-11-19 09:46:05 EST
    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 10:19:37 EST
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

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.