On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 08:52 -0500, Ed Wilts wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:33:41AM -0400, Brian Long wrote:
> > > OCFS is not proprietary; it's fully open source and GPL fwiw
> > Sorry, I thought only the newer OCFS v2 for the 2.6 kernel was open-
> > source. With OCFS v2 and GFS in the mix, things are heating up in the
> > shared SAN filesystem arena. Is there a Red Hat matrix of why GFS is
> > better than OCFS v2? :) I believe SUSE is integrating OCFS v2 into a
> > SLES 9 service pack in the near future.
> I think that SLES includes reiserfs and xfs too. Red Hat is very
> conservative with its list of supported file systems.
> > What is Red Hat's stance of OCFS v2. vs. GFS?
> GFS was developed by Sistina Software. Red Hat purchased Sistina. What
> do you think their stance is going to be? :-)
> Seriously, I would expect (without any inside knowledge whatsoever) that
> GFS will either be good enough for most of us or Red Hat will make it
> so. I personally don't expect Red Hat to include OCFS in its enterprise
> kernels although it might show up in Fedora.
I believe this provides another reason for people to use SLES over RHEL
in the future, however. If SLES includes OCFS support out-of-the-box
and Red Hat charges an additional $2K/node for GFS, something is out of
whack. Or am I missing something?
Brian Long | | |
IT Data Center Systems | .|||. .|||.
Cisco Linux Developer | ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:..
Phone: (919) 392-7363 | C i s c o S y s t e m s
Taroon-list mailing list