I just started looking at gfs. To understand it you'd need to look at it from the entire cluster solution point of view. This is a good document from David. It's not about GFS in particular but about the architecture of the cluster. http://people.redhat.com/~teigland/sca.pdf Hua > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Christoph Hellwig > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:56 AM > To: Alan Cox > Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Andrew Morton; > linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > That's GFS. The submission is about a GFS2 that's > on-disk incompatible > > > to GFS. > > > > Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or > ext2 and ext3 > > then. I think the main point still stands - we have always taken > > multiple file systems on board and we have benefitted > enormously from > > having the competition between them instead of a dictat > from the kernel > > kremlin that 'foofs is the one true way' > > I didn't say anything agains a particular fs, just that your previous > arguments where utter nonsense. In fact I think having two > or more cluster > filesystems in the tree is a good thing. Whether the gfs2 > code is mergeable > is a completely different question, and it seems at least debatable to > submit a filesystem for inclusion that's still pretty new. > > While we're at it I can't find anything describing what gfs2 is about, > what is lacking in gfs, what structual changes did you make, etc.. > > p.s. why is gfs2 in fs/gfs in the kernel tree? > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
