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

[Gareth Bult]

Hi,

> What I think everyone is saying ... not implying, but saying... is
> this.  
> 
> RHEL is stable (if you use the supported kernel), and GFS 6.0 for RHEL
> is stable.  If you are using anything else, it is not stable.  Why is
> that so hard to understand?


Perhaps because for non-redhat users, 2.4 is considered "old hat" and
they can't understand why Redhat is *still* using 2.4 (?!)


> The 2.6 Kernel is stable ... however, it is not stable (or supported)
> on RHEL ... and the code GFS code for the 2.6 kernel is not
> recommended for use on a production machine with a 2.6 kernel.  Use
> the GFS code for the 2.6 kernel on a production machine at your own
> risk.


Urm, I guess I don't "have" to use 2.6, but it would be "really" painful
for me not to use 2.6 .. for way more reasons than I want to list here.


> At least that is what I got out of the posts ... maybe I'm wrong
> though


Sure, thought you should appreciate that for people who've been off 2.4
and in production on 2.6 for a long time, comments like "you should be
using 2.4" are a little redundant.

Regards,
Gareth.


> 
> Johnny Hughes
> HughesJR.com
> 
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster

-- 
Gareth Bult <Gareth at Bult.co.uk>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20040710/4b08f7ad/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/20040710/4b08f7ad/attachment.sig>