Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: GFS, what's remaining | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:14:00 +0200 |
| |
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 <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> 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/
| |