[Linux-cluster] gfs1 vrs gfs2 best practices in CentOS 5.1 (RHEL5.1)

[gordan at bobich.net]

I suspect you'll find the GFS2 mount/unmount tools are backward 
compatible and stable. The mkfs stuff isn't symlinked, so you still get to 
create the FS of the version you mean to use.

Gordan

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, linux-cluster at merctech.com wrote:

>
> I've seen suggestions that GFS2 is not yet ready for production use...however,
> in CentOS 5.1 (and, I assume, the upstream provider), GFS2 is the default:
>
>
> 	lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     10 Jan 29 17:44 /sbin/mount.gfs -> mount.gfs2
> 	-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  42000 Nov 12 14:04 /sbin/mount.gfs2
> 	lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     11 Jan 29 17:44 /sbin/umount.gfs -> umount.gfs2
> 	-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  40840 Nov 12 14:04 /sbin/umount.gfs2
>
> This is on a CentOS 5.1 system, fully up-to-date with "yum".
>
> In other words, installing gfs1 (via the gfs-utils package through yum) includes
> gfs2 as a dependency, and the gfs2 installation replaces mount.gfs and
> umount.gfs with links to the gfs2 version.
>
> The umount.gfs2 binary is not backward compatible--I was not able to mount a
> gfs1 filesystem with mount.gfs2, and there is no mount.gfs (version1) binary
> installed.
>
>
> My questions are:
>
> 	Does this mean that GFS2 under CentOS5.1 (RHEL5.1) is now
> 	production-ready?
>
> 	If not, what's the recommended way of installing mount.gfs (version1)
> 	under CentOS 5.1?
>
> [Yes, I can certainly compile mount.gfs from source, or remove gfs-utils and
> gfs2-utils and the force the installation of gfs-utils without it's
> dependencies. However, for long-term system maintenance (and my sanity), I
> strongly prefer not to administer servers with those kind of "exceptions".]
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
> -----
> Mark Bergman
>
> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=bergman%40merctech.com
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>