Hi, On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 11:20 +0200, Kadlecsik Jozsef wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > > > > We'd need features added to recent 2.6 kernels (like read-only bindmount), > > > so the natural path was upgrading GFS1. However, as in the present state > > > our cluster is unstable, either we have to find the culprit or go back to > > > the proven version (and loosing the required new features). > > > > Read only bind mounts have not been tested with gfs1 and they might very > > well not work correctly, so be careful. Our general plan is to try and > > introduce new features into GFS2 and to maintain GFS with its existing > > feature set. Thats not to say that there will be no new features in GFS, > > but just that we are trying in general to put the new stuff in GFS2. > > We do not need read-only bind mounts in GFS itself but in local > filesystems. Ok, that should be fine then. > > > Upgrading from GFS1 to GFS2 will always have to involve a shutdown in > > cluster operations since the differing journalling schemes rule out a > > node by node in place upgrade I'm afraid, > > That's fully acceptable. I assume there's no problem in running GFS1 and > GFS2 volumes in parallel? > > Best regards, > Jozsef No, they are designed to be able to run in parallel, so there should be no issues doing that, Steve. -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
