On Jan 25, 2008 11:22 AM, <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, James McOrmond wrote: > > > > > gordan@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> > >> By and large, none. GFS is fairly unique in the way it does things. The > >> rest of the world hasn't really caught up yet. ;-) > > > > what exactly does it do that's unique? > > I appear to stand corrected as per the other post, with SGI and IBM > offerings that do similar things, but providing shared r/w access to a > common physical volume isn't exactly common. > > >> I'm not sure why OCFS keeps coming up, since it's not a normal, general > >> purpose file system. It's only useful for putting Oracle DB volumes on it. > > > > ocfs2 is a general file system and has been available for quite some time > > (and is very easy to setup). > > Fair enough. The documentation I had read on it seemed to imply otherwise, > which is why I went with GFS. I cannot say that I am in any way regretting > that choice. :-) > > Gordan Well, I am having a heck of a time wrapping my head around how clustering and gfs are related. My application is an N+1 type of configuration (grid computing). I don't need any application clustering that cluster suite offers. I just need a file system that they can all mount in read/write. I might just have to get a couple of RHEL5 boxes up and going to fully understand this. Is cluster suite and gfs included in RHEL5? Or how does that work? -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
