From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: GFS, what's remaining Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:21:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20050901132104.2d643ccd.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> <20050901035939.435768f3.akpm@osdl.org> <1125586158.15768.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: linux clustering Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cluster@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <1125586158.15768.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-cluster-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > > On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 03:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > - Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems > > So delete reiserfs4, FAT, VFAT, ext2, and all the other "junk". Well, we did delete intermezzo. I was looking for technical reasons, please. > > - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot > > possibly gain (or vice versa) > > > > - Relative merits of the two offerings > > You missed the important one - people actively use it and have been for > some years. Same reason with have NTFS, HPFS, and all the others. On > that alone it makes sense to include. Again, that's not a technical reason. It's _a_ reason, sure. But what are the technical reasons for merging gfs[2], ocfs2, both or neither? If one can be grown to encompass the capabilities of the other then we're left with a bunch of legacy code and wasted effort. I'm not saying it's wrong. But I'd like to hear the proponents explain why it's right, please.