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

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

I suspect you'll find the GFS2 mount/unmount tools are backward compatible and stable. The mkfs stuff isn't symlinked, so you still get to create the FS of the version you mean to use.


On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, linux-cluster merctech com wrote:

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

My questions are:

	Does this mean that GFS2 under CentOS5.1 (RHEL5.1) is now

	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".]


Mark Bergman


Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster redhat com

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