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

[Linux-cluster] gfs1 vrs gfs2 best practices in CentOS 5.1 (RHEL5.1)



I've seen suggestions that GFS2 is not yet ready for production use...however, 
in CentOS 5.1 (and, I assume, the upstream provider), GFS2 is the default:


	lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     10 Jan 29 17:44 /sbin/mount.gfs -> mount.gfs2
	-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  42000 Nov 12 14:04 /sbin/mount.gfs2
	lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     11 Jan 29 17:44 /sbin/umount.gfs -> umount.gfs2
	-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  40840 Nov 12 14:04 /sbin/umount.gfs2

This is on a CentOS 5.1 system, fully up-to-date with "yum".

In other words, installing gfs1 (via the gfs-utils package through yum) includes
gfs2 as a dependency, and the gfs2 installation replaces mount.gfs and
umount.gfs with links to the gfs2 version.

The umount.gfs2 binary is not backward compatible--I was not able to mount a
gfs1 filesystem with mount.gfs2, and there is no mount.gfs (version1) binary
installed.


My questions are:
	
	Does this mean that GFS2 under CentOS5.1 (RHEL5.1) is now
	production-ready?

	If not, what's the recommended way of installing mount.gfs (version1)
	under CentOS 5.1?

[Yes, I can certainly compile mount.gfs from source, or remove gfs-utils and
gfs2-utils and the force the installation of gfs-utils without it's 
dependencies. However, for long-term system maintenance (and my sanity), I 
strongly prefer not to administer servers with those kind of "exceptions".]

Thanks,

Mark
-----
Mark Bergman   

http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=bergman%40merctech.com


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