Re: Re: gfs_fsck problems (not doingget_get_meta_buffer)

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

To: Michael Will <mwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re: gfs_fsck problems (not doingget_get_meta_buffer)
From: David Teigland <teigland@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:40:45 -0500
Cc: Stephen Willey <stephen.willey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daire Byrne <Daire.Byrne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <433093DF7AD7444DA65EFAFE3987879C125D05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <433093DF7AD7444DA65EFAFE3987879C125D05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: linux clustering <linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:29:01AM -0700, Michael Will wrote:
> Is the fs code closer to ext than to say xfs?

I wouldn't say GFS code is close to anything.

Dave

--

Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster

References:
- Re: Re: gfs_fsck problems (not doingget_get_meta_buffer)
  - From: Michael Will

Prev by Date: Re: Re: gfs_fsck problems (not doing get_get_meta_buffer)
Next by Date: RHEL AS4 Server Farming options
Previous by thread: Re: Re: gfs_fsck problems (not doingget_get_meta_buffer)
Next by thread: RE: Re: gfs_fsck problems (not doingget_get_meta_buffer)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Corosync Cluster Engine] [GFS] [Linux Virtualization] [Centos Virtualization] [Centos] [Linux RAID] [Fedora Users] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite Camping]

Powered by Linux