I've seen suggestions that GFS2 is not yet ready for production use...however, in CentOS 5.1 (and, I assume, the upstream provider), GFS2 is the default: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Jan 29 17:44 /sbin/mount.gfs -> mount.gfs2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 42000 Nov 12 14:04 /sbin/mount.gfs2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Jan 29 17:44 /sbin/umount.gfs -> umount.gfs2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 40840 Nov 12 14:04 /sbin/umount.gfs2 This is on a CentOS 5.1 system, fully up-to-date with "yum". In other words, installing gfs1 (via the gfs-utils package through yum) includes gfs2 as a dependency, and the gfs2 installation replaces mount.gfs and umount.gfs with links to the gfs2 version. The umount.gfs2 binary is not backward compatible--I was not able to mount a gfs1 filesystem with mount.gfs2, and there is no mount.gfs (version1) binary installed. My questions are: Does this mean that GFS2 under CentOS5.1 (RHEL5.1) is now production-ready? If not, what's the recommended way of installing mount.gfs (version1) under CentOS 5.1? [Yes, I can certainly compile mount.gfs from source, or remove gfs-utils and gfs2-utils and the force the installation of gfs-utils without it's dependencies. However, for long-term system maintenance (and my sanity), I strongly prefer not to administer servers with those kind of "exceptions".] Thanks, Mark ----- Mark Bergman http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=bergman%40merctech.com -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
