Journaling File System

[inode0]

On 3/4/06, Ed Wilts <ewilts at ewilts.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 03:01:01AM -0600, inode0 wrote:
> > On 3/3/06, Ed Wilts <ewilts at ewilts.org> wrote:
> > > I do not believe that Red Hat enables the JFS module and that if you
> > > build your own kernel, you lose support on that kernel.
> >
> > If you roll your own kernel that makes sense but if you just add the
> > missing module does that have support ramifications beyond Red Hat not
> > supporting the JFS module?
>
> >From Red Hat's knowledgebase:
>
> "Systems using a kernel recompiled from source (including from the Red
> Hat supplied kernel source RPMs) or a binary kernel supplied by a third
> party are not supported by Red Hat. If you experience a problem while
> using a recompiled or third party-supplied binary kernel, we will ask
> you to substitute one of the Red Hat supplied kernels from an RPM and
> attempt to recreate the problem. If the problem persists while using the
> Red Hat supplied kernel we will be able to offer support for this
> configuration. We are only able to offer support for problems
> experienced using a Red Hat supplied kernel."

I'm not questioning that Red Hat won't support kernels they don't
provide. Anything else would be utterly insane.

Does building JFS support in Red Hat require one to recompile the
kernel? UFS and other filesystems do not. I assume JFS support can be
compiled against the running kernel as a module as others can. My
question was about support ramifications in that scenario. I don't
think the above quoted stuff addresses that. I'm happy assuming Red
Hat will still support the kernel but not the module or any of the
consequences arising from the use of the module.

John