On 7/26/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Rosenberg wrote: > Anyway, I'm surprised that you don't have some list or other way to > correlate version history of XFS, with os release versions. I'm guessing > the version I have is not using the latest/greatest. We actually have > another system that uses an older version of the kernel (2.6.32-279), and 2.6.32-279 - this is not a mainline kernel version. This is a Red Hat specific string describing their internal kernel release. It has zero correlation to any version number of anything else in the world of mainline Linux. > If, say you tell me, the mainline xfs code has improved behavior, it would > be nice to have a way to know which version of CentOS might include that? IMNSHO, CentOS is a free proprietary chrome plated dog turd. It's flashy on the outside and claims it's "ENTERPRISE", "just like RHEL!". Then you crack it open and find nothing but crap inside. So you take it back to the store that gave it away for free and the doors are barred, the place out of business. The chrome has peeled off and you're stuck with crap that difficult to use. Every time you touch it you get dirty in some fashion. RHEL is a proprietary solid chrome turd you pay for. You can't get to the inside, but if you find a scratch and 'return' it Red Hat will say "we can help you fix that". If you avoid the flashy turds altogether while still plunking down no cash, and use a distro based entirely on mainline Linux and GNU user space source, you can get help directly from the folks who wrote the code you're running because they know what is where. Whether it be Linux proper, the XFS subsystem, NFS, Samba, Postix, etc. Such distributions are too numerous to mention. None of them are chrome plated, none claim to be "just like ENTERPRISE distro X". I tell all users of RHEL knock offs every time I see a situation like this: Either pay for and receive the support that's required for the proprietary distribution you're running, or use a completely open source distro based on mainline kernel source and GNU user space. By using a RHEL knock off, you're simply locking yourself into an outdated proprietary code base for which there is no viable support option, because so few people in the community understand the packaging of the constituent parts of the RHEL kernels. This is entirely intentional on the part of Red Hat, specifically to make the life of CentOS users painful, and rightfully so. FYI, many of the folks on the XFS list are Red Hat employees, including Dave. They'll gladly assist RHEL customers here if needed. However, to support CentOS users, especially in your situation, they'd have to use Red Hat Inc resources to hunt down the information related to the CentOS kernel you have that correlates to the RHEL kernel it is copied from. So they've just consumed Red Hat Inc resources to directly assist a free competitor who copied their distro. Thus there's not much incentive to assist CentOS users as they'd in essence be taking money out of their employer's pocket. Taken to the extreme this results in pay cuts, possibly furloughs or pink slips, etc. Surely this can't be the first time you've run into a free community support issue with the CentOS kernel. Surely what I've written isn't news to you. Pay Red Hat for RHEL, or switch to Debian, Ubuntu, Open Suse, etc. Either way you'll be able to get much better support. -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
