Re: GFS, what's remaining

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 13:18 +0800, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:21:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot
> > > >   possibly gain (or vice versa)
> > > > 
> > > > - Relative merits of the two offerings
> > > 
> > > You missed the important one - people actively use it and have been for
> > > some years. Same reason with have NTFS, HPFS, and all the others. On
> > > that alone it makes sense to include.
> > 
> > Again, that's not a technical reason.  It's _a_ reason, sure.  But what are
> > the technical reasons for merging gfs[2], ocfs2, both or neither?
> > 
> > If one can be grown to encompass the capabilities of the other then we're
> > left with a bunch of legacy code and wasted effort.
> 
> GFS is an established fs, it's not going away, you'd be hard pressed to
> find a more widely used cluster fs on Linux.  GFS is about 10 years old
> and has been in use by customers in production environments for about 5
> years.

but you submitted GFS2 not GFS.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/