[Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

[Hua Zhong (hzhong)]

I just started looking at gfs. To understand it you'd need to look at it
from the entire cluster solution point of view.

This is a good document from David. It's not about GFS in particular but
about the architecture of the cluster.

http://people.redhat.com/~teigland/sca.pdf 

Hua

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com 
> [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of 
> Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:56 AM
> To: Alan Cox
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Andrew Morton; 
> linux-fsdevel at vger.kernel.org; linux-cluster at redhat.com; 
> linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining
> 
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > That's GFS.  The submission is about a GFS2 that's 
> on-disk incompatible
> > > to GFS.
> > 
> > Just like say reiserfs3 and reiserfs4 or ext and ext2 or 
> ext2 and ext3
> > then. I think the main point still stands - we have always taken
> > multiple file systems on board and we have benefitted 
> enormously from
> > having the competition between them instead of a dictat 
> from the kernel
> > kremlin that 'foofs is the one true way'
> 
> I didn't say anything agains a particular fs, just that your previous
> arguments where utter nonsense.  In fact I think having two 
> or more cluster
> filesystems in the tree is a good thing.  Whether the gfs2 
> code is mergeable
> is a completely different question, and it seems at least debatable to
> submit a filesystem for inclusion that's still pretty new.
> 
> While we're at it I can't find anything describing what gfs2 is about,
> what is lacking in gfs, what structual changes did you make, etc..
> 
> p.s. why is gfs2 in fs/gfs in the kernel tree?
> 
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster