On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 13:18 +0800, David Teigland wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:21:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > - 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. > > GFS is an established fs, it's not going away, you'd be hard pressed to > find a more widely used cluster fs on Linux. GFS is about 10 years old > and has been in use by customers in production environments for about 5 > years. but you submitted GFS2 not GFS. -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
