On 11/28/06, Riaan van Niekerk <riaan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
GFS is priced to compete with Veritas, Poliserve, etc. It is not priced to compete with an all-you-can eat license from MS. GFS is a complex product (with complex support/certification requirements). If you dont need the support/certification, CentOS-based GFS/RHCS is a very attractive option.
Not sure if SPLA is all-you-can-eat but it definately gets the software for cheap but support is a different story. I guess here, we're really paying for support as the software can be built from the src without much trouble.
No - a GFS-kernel version maps to a specific kernel version (at least on RH it does). the GFS-kernel to kernel version mapping: GFS-kernel-smp-2.6.9-60.1 goes with 2.6.9-42.0.2.ELsmp GFS-kernel-smp-2.6.9-60.3 goes with 2.6.9-42.0.3.ELsmp
<snip> Ok, I think I've got it sorted now. I have a lot of bizarre mix-match of software installed on this machine (i.e. I have 3 previous versions of GFS-kernel-smp lying around) , which really shouldn't be, but all I've ever done is "yum update". It should've updated it instead of just continuing to install new packages while leaving the old ones behind. Maybe I did something wrong, who knows. But what I have is GFS-kernel-smp-2.6.9-58.3 which when called from "rpm -ql" command, tells me that it's built for 42.0.2. And I do have the GFS-kernel-smp-2.6.9-60.3.i686.rpm RPM which I haven't installed yet as I was waiting to get an understanding of how the upgrades and corresponding kernels work. Now that I know, I'll upgrade to 42.0.3 and install GFS-kernel-smp-2.6.9-60.3.i686.rpm. Thanks SO much for clarifying this. Rgds, \R -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
