On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jankowski, Chris <Chris.Jankowski@xxxxxx> wrote: > I am curious why the designers of RHEV V3.0 did not use GFS2 for their > shared storage. It seems that this would be a natural choice. Instead RHEV > 3.0 allows either NFS or raw shared LUNs, I believe. > > Anybody has some thoughts on this subject? I'm GUESSing that: - it's simpler that way (i.e. no need to setup fence, cman, etc). This is different from ocfs2 which can work without additional manual fencing setup involved - The performance is better -- Fajar -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
