[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: GFS, what's remaining
Alan Cox <> wrote:
> On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 03:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > - Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems
> So delete reiserfs4, FAT, VFAT, ext2, and all the other "junk".

Well, we did delete intermezzo.

I was looking for technical reasons, please.

> > - 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.

I'm not saying it's wrong. But I'd like to hear the proponents explain why
it's right, please.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-01 22:25    [W:0.267 / U:1.244 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site