[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:0.021 / U:5.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site