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

Re: [rhelv5-list] XFS with RHEL5?

Joe (Mobile) wrote:

Don't suppose my comments are directed specifically at you. It's so easy for those working only at client sites to only see one side of the argument. Like clients, suppliers also need to ensure their contracts support their interests, and while some interests are compatible (I want your money, you want my product), some (eg price) conflict.

Yes, that is the unfortunate truth. It all boils down to getting
support in case to
catastrophal desaster (all backups somwhow screwed, all copies affected, all
backup locations in flames/flooded/...) or some unexpected malfunction when
restoring data. If we use a certified system, we can demand IBM to work day

If I go to a good deal of trouble to evaluate my software's operation on Fred's Linux Distro, I am going to describe it as "Working to specification on Fred's Linux Distro."

If you run it on "Joe's Clone of Fred's Linux Distro." I might say "it should work, " and I might even (lawyers permitting) provide some help getting it up and running, but I will certainly disavow any formal responsibility for it actually working. You take that responsibility.

And as for Debbie and Ian's Linux, well, really!.

and night trying to fix it, while the use of an uncertified system opens up the
possibility of refusal of support and shoving the blame to us (meaning my team
and me). It might be possible that the use of e.g. CentOS due to its binary
compatibility to RHELcould be judged as valid by a court, but that would take
months, which is unacceptable in a restore scenario and not even guaranteered.

I'm sure your vendors' lawyers have contemplated that and provided the vendors with a position or two. One might be, "We will try to make it work," and another, "We didn't say it will work."

It is vastly different to e.g. using XFS by choice: in this case we/I
take the risk of
a possible failure and subsequently needed restore from backup, but this has not
the risk of bringing down the company or irrecoverably loosing data.

If you're using an unsupported feature of Linux, particularly one as intrusive as this, then all bets are off.

So, I'll either have to stick with RHEL5 (and ext3) or change it to
SLES10 (which
offers XFS as John pointed out). I have to admit that I'm a bit
hesistant to use SuSe
in a server environment, since it really despise all that automatic system wide
reconfiguring that it going on, when you change some small detail.
I've had some
really bad experiences with that.

Despite your concerns, SUSE does have its advantages, and most of the zSeries (IBM mainframe) market.

So, for the time being, we've talked it over and decided to use RHEL5
with ext3 for the
time being, until a better solution is offered (or CentOS/Fedora are
officially supported
by IBM). I hope that HP might convince Redhat to include XFS in future

I'm sure Red Hat will do almost anything, provided that is sees an adequate return on the investment,

ext4 is more likely. Seems the source is in the F8 kernels.



-- spambait
1aaaaaaa coco merseine nu  Z1aaaaaaa coco merseine nu
-- Advice

You cannot reply off-list:-)

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