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

[Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > That's GFS.  The submission is about a GFS2 that's on-disk incompatible
> > to GFS.
> Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or ext2 and ext3
> then. I think the main point still stands - we have always taken
> multiple file systems on board and we have benefitted enormously from
> having the competition between them instead of a dictat from the kernel
> kremlin that 'foofs is the one true way'

I didn't say anything agains a particular fs, just that your previous
arguments where utter nonsense.  In fact I think having two or more cluster
filesystems in the tree is a good thing.  Whether the gfs2 code is mergeable
is a completely different question, and it seems at least debatable to
submit a filesystem for inclusion that's still pretty new.

While we're at it I can't find anything describing what gfs2 is about,
what is lacking in gfs, what structual changes did you make, etc..

p.s. why is gfs2 in fs/gfs in the kernel tree?

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