Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030296AbVIASsJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:48:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030294AbVIASsJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:48:09 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70]:19793 "EHLO sj-iport-1.cisco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030293AbVIASsH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:48:07 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,162,1122879600"; d="scan'208"; a="657932457:sNHT32257158" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Subject: RE: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:47:54 -0700 Message-ID: <75D9B5F4E50C8B4BB27622BD06C2B82B7B8E04@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining Thread-Index: AcWvHoEdtNNM031FTBqDl5czu1K2UAABCqmw From: "Hua Zhong \(hzhong\)" To: "linux clustering" , "Alan Cox" Cc: "Andrew Morton" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2005 18:47:55.0241 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA1A0590:01C5AF25] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2123 Lines: 57 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: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of > Christoph Hellwig > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:56 AM > To: Alan Cox > Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Andrew Morton; > linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; linux-cluster@redhat.com; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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 > Linux-cluster@redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/