From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Usage stats[edit]

Is there any data on whether GFS gets widely used in the real world? JNW2 04:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Free software: GFS is now the selected article[edit]

Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was free software licences.

For other interesting free software articles, you can take a look at the archive of PF's selectees. --Gronky (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Things have moved on, as always. The new selectee is OGRE 3D - a free software 3d graphics engine for games. --Gronky (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Could someone in the industry please create a "Disadvantages" section showing where this file system is missing features that are present in other file systems? e.g. It's missing transparent compression and encryption. I would volunteer but I am not a regular user of this file system. --Craig Mayhew (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The main disadvantage is that the cache control can result in thrashing between nodes when two nodes try to update the same inode at the same time. Obviously this is expected usage to some extent, but performance can get very poor, very quickly, if this is done too much. So understanding which workloads will work well on GFS2 is not always trivial, hence the explanation of the cache control system StevenWhitehouse (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cache coherency[edit]

It looks that GFS's glocks, are similar to MESI protocol (aka Illinois protocol), or its variation. What do you think? -- (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no.... the glock has modes to take into account different cache control for data and metadata, but the principle is basically the same. StevenWhitehouse (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


"All nodes in a GFS cluster function as peers, though Red Hat does not intend GFS to be used in an active/active configuration." There is no merit in second half of this sentence, added by on September 21, 2010. In fact, an active-active cluster configuration is a target workload of GFS and is supported by Red Hat. Unless someone can cite evidence to the contrary, I'll go ahead and delete "though Red Hat does not intend GFS to be used in an active/active configuration." -- Swapdisk (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a cute file system....!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "does not intent GFS to be used in an active/active configuration" should be removed. It isn't true, and doesn't make sense. The whole point of GFS2 is that it can be used in active/active mode. There are some restrictions when exporting via NFS and/or Samba and also there are performance considerations wrt caching as explained above, but there would be no point in it, if active/active operation were not allowed. StevenWhitehouse (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

This is a Red Hat system, so I named it as such, and also Talk:Global filesystem is relevant. History2007 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is two things - part of a Red Hat product (it is not a product on its own) and an upstream Linux filesystem. So I'm not sure that it should be any more "Red Hat" than any other Linux filesystem, such as ext3 which is also included in Red Hat products StevenWhitehouse (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone still support GFS1? If not, we might as well move the article to the unambiguous name GFS2, which should also be the most common current name. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Per upstream sources:
... I'm moving it to GFS2. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)