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

[Doug Sharp]

I'm also running CentOS 5.1 brought up to date via yum.  I have the same /sbin links that you show, but didn't notice it when I created my filesystems.  I used gfs_mkfs and it created and is successfully managing the GFS1 filesystems.  I've manually mounted them using "mount /dev/vg/lv /mntpt" and also by letting cluster manager mount them (and unmount them) via the gfs resource.

So, what Gordon says appears to be true for my system - backward compatible.  I also noticed that doing an lsmod | grep gfs shows that both kernel modules are loaded.

Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com on behalf of gordan at bobich.net
Sent: Wed 1/30/2008 12:38 PM
To: linux clustering
Subject: 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.

Gordan

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, linux-cluster at 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
> 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
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>

--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster at redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4220 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20080130/b2694f5a/attachment.bin>