I just started looking at gfs. To understand it you'd need to look at it
from the entire cluster solution point of view.
This is a good document from David. It's not about GFS in particular but
about the architecture of the cluster.
http://people.redhat.com/~teigland/sca.pdf
Hua
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:56 AM
> To: Alan Cox
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Andrew Morton;
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining
>
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > That's GFS. The submission is about a GFS2 that's
> on-disk incompatible
> > > to GFS.
> >
> > Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or
> ext2 and ext3
> > then. I think the main point still stands - we have always taken
> > multiple file systems on board and we have benefitted
> enormously from
> > having the competition between them instead of a dictat
> from the kernel
> > kremlin that 'foofs is the one true way'
>
> I didn't say anything agains a particular fs, just that your previous
> arguments where utter nonsense. In fact I think having two
> or more cluster
> filesystems in the tree is a good thing. Whether the gfs2
> code is mergeable
> is a completely different question, and it seems at least debatable to
> submit a filesystem for inclusion that's still pretty new.
>
> While we're at it I can't find anything describing what gfs2 is about,
> what is lacking in gfs, what structual changes did you make, etc..
>
> p.s. why is gfs2 in fs/gfs in the kernel tree?
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster