[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] GNBD, how good it is ?



Hi,
What I think everyone is saying ... not implying, but saying... is this. 

RHEL is stable (if you use the supported kernel), and GFS 6.0 for RHEL is stable.  If you are using anything else, it is not stable.  Why is that so hard to understand?

Perhaps because for non-redhat users, 2.4 is considered "old hat" and they can't understand why Redhat is *still* using 2.4 (?!)

The 2.6 Kernel is stable ... however, it is not stable (or supported) on RHEL ... and the code GFS code for the 2.6 kernel is not recommended for use on a production machine with a 2.6 kernel.  Use the GFS code for the 2.6 kernel on a production machine at your own risk.

Urm, I guess I don't "have" to use 2.6, but it would be "really" painful for me not to use 2.6 .. for way more reasons than I want to list here.

At least that is what I got out of the posts ... maybe I'm wrong though

Sure, thought you should appreciate that for people who've been off 2.4 and in production on 2.6 for a long time, comments like "you should be using 2.4" are a little redundant.

Regards,
Gareth.


Johnny Hughes
HughesJR.com
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster redhat com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
--
Gareth Bult <Gareth Bult co uk>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]