On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 12:37 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> Doug Tucker wrote:
> > My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone
> > else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my
> > statement I said: "Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that
> > someone hijacked my thread with." So I'm agreeing that XFS should never
> > be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file
> > system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together.
> >
>
>
> GFS is only 'officially supported' under a seperate $$$$ contract from
> Red Hat.
And? It's official. In fact, ext3 is only officially supported from
them these day without a $$$ contract. Which is why we're all here! :D
> And, if you're a GFS customer of Red Hat's, I'm pretty darn
> sure the first thing they do is disable kernel updates... In fact, I
> seem to recall that RHEL4 ships with kernel updates disabled, you have
> to use `up2date --force` or something to enable them.
Yes, but kernel is disabled from EL4 reguardless of filesystem, so GFS
has nothing to do with that. YOu can just edit the up2date file to
remove that. I merely believe that GFS filesystem updates should be
released in conjuntion with kernel with all the other filesystems built
in, treating it no differently since it is officially supported, just
not put in the standard kernel build to put separation between it and
the $$ extra product. And that is merely, an opinion.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
