Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161161AbVICGOR (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Sep 2005 02:14:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161159AbVICGOR (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Sep 2005 02:14:17 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:42212 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161158AbVICGOP (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Sep 2005 02:14:15 -0400 Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining From: Arjan van de Ven To: David Teigland Cc: Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cluster@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20050903051841.GA13211@redhat.com> References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> <20050901035939.435768f3.akpm@osdl.org> <1125586158.15768.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901132104.2d643ccd.akpm@osdl.org> <20050903051841.GA13211@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:14:00 +0200 Message-Id: <1125728040.3223.2.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.8 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1356 Lines: 31 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 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/