[Linux-cluster] GNBD, how good it is ?

[Gareth Bult]

Urm, no ..

I'm not on the kernel mailing list.
(Are you implying 2.6 is unstable ?!  It's way safer to use that 2.4 !!)

I'm inclined at this point to mention Fedora and all my years using
Redhat and my relatively recent move to Gentoo .. suffice to say I
picked up the code off a public news site and thought it was stable
enough to play with. (and it's not)

How about some big notices on the source web pages to the effect that
it's for experimental use only and should not be used near a production
environment (?!)

Regards,
Gareth.

On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 13:49 -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> On Friday 09 July 2004 12:42, Gareth Bult wrote:
> > >Which press releases?
> >
> > Urm, how 'bout this one .. you might not call it a "press release",
> > but I found it via an announcement on a news site ..
> > maybe it's me but I don't see the words "development", "beta" or "not
> > working yet" listed anywhere  .. ;-)
> 
> You found it on Linux Kernel Mailing List, and it's for 2.6.  Please 
> draw your own conclusion ;-)
> 
> GFS 6.0 on 2.4 is the stable release.
> 
> > (Oopses listed on IRC when discovered, someone has them.. bmarzins I
> > think..)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Daniel

-- 
Gareth Bult <Gareth at Bult.co.uk>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20040710/ac7bae4e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20040710/ac7bae4e/attachment.sig>