Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 03:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > - Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems > > So delete reiserfs4, FAT, VFAT, ext2, and all the other "junk". Well, we did delete intermezzo. I was looking for technical reasons, please. > > - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot > > possibly gain (or vice versa) > > > > - Relative merits of the two offerings > > You missed the important one - people actively use it and have been for > some years. Same reason with have NTFS, HPFS, and all the others. On > that alone it makes sense to include. Again, that's not a technical reason. It's _a_ reason, sure. But what are the technical reasons for merging gfs[2], ocfs2, both or neither? If one can be grown to encompass the capabilities of the other then we're left with a bunch of legacy code and wasted effort. I'm not saying it's wrong. But I'd like to hear the proponents explain why it's right, please. -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
