'Re: [Linux-cluster] GNBD, how good it is ?'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List: redhat-linux-cluster
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] GNBD, how good it is ?
From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists () hughesjr ! com>
Date: 2004-07-10 22:37:32
Message-ID: 1089499052.5230.27.camel () Myth ! home ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]

On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 16:46, Gareth Bult wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> >What I think everyone is saying ... not implying, but saying... is this.
> 
> 
> >RHEL is stable (if you use the supported kernel), and GFS 6.0 for RHEL
> >is stable.  If you are using anything else, it is not stable.  Why is
> >that so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps because for non-redhat users, 2.4 is considered "old hat" and
> they can't understand why Redhat is *still* using 2.4 (?!)
> 

RHEL is using a 2.4 kernel because that is what they chose to make
stable. You are on a RedHat mailing list discussing a RedHat product. 
Thousands of customers running Oracle on RHEL 3 AS are quite happy that
RedHat is using a 2.4.21 kernel (as an example).  They are also happy
that RedHat is making GFS 6.0 available for the RHEL 3 product line.

> 
> 
> >The 2.6 Kernel is stable ... however, it is not stable (or supported) on
> >RHEL ... and the code GFS code for the 2.6 kernel is not recommended for
> >use on a production machine with a 2.6 kernel.  Use the GFS code for the
> >2.6 kernel on a production machine at your own risk.
> 
> 
> 
> Urm, I guess I don't "have" to use 2.6, but it would be "really" painful
> for me not to use 2.6 .. for way more reasons than I want to list here.
> 

Use whatever you want ... only don't expect software that someone says
is unstable to be stable.  IF you want a stable GFS from RedHat ... use
RHEL and GFS 6.  If you want to use another distro and another GFS ...
great ... just don't complain that it is not stable.

> 
> 
> >At least that is what I got out of the posts ... maybe I'm wrong though
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, thought you should appreciate that for people who've been off 2.4
> and in production on 2.6 for a long time, comments like "you should be
> using 2.4" are a little redundant.

Again ... you are the person who chooses what technology you deploy ...
but RedHat is going to put out stable products for their supported
RHEL.  If you can make it work on a different distro with a different
kernel, great.

> 
> Regards,
> Gareth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnny Hughes
> HughesJR.com <http://www.hughesjr.com>  	
> 

Johnny Hughes

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
  <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
  <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.0.10">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 16:46, Gareth Bult wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE><FONT COLOR="#737373"><I>Hi,

&gt;What I think everyone is saying ... not implying, but \
saying... is this.

&gt;RHEL is stable (if you use the supported kernel), and \
GFS 6.0 for RHEL &gt;is stable.&nbsp; If you are \
using anything else, it is not stable.&nbsp; Why is &gt;that so hard to understand?

Perhaps because for non-redhat users, 2.4 is considered &quot;old hat&quot; and
they can't understand why Redhat is *still* using 2.4 (?!)
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
RHEL is using a 2.4 kernel because that is what they chose to make stable. You are on \
a RedHat mailing list discussing a RedHat product.&nbsp; Thousands of customers \
running Oracle on RHEL 3 AS are quite happy that RedHat is using a 2.4.21 kernel (as \
an example).&nbsp; They are also happy that RedHat is making GFS 6.0 available for \
the RHEL 3 product line. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>

&gt;The 2.6 Kernel is stable ... however, it is not stable \
(or supported) on &gt;RHEL ... and the code GFS \
code for the 2.6 kernel is not recommended for &gt;use on a production machine with a 2.6 kernel.&nbsp; Use the GFS \
code for the &gt;2.6 kernel on a production \
machine at your own risk.

Urm, I guess I don't &quot;have&quot; to use 2.6, but it would be &quot;really&quot; \
painful for me not to use 2.6 .. for way more reasons than I want to list here.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Use whatever you want ... only don't expect software that someone says is unstable to \
be stable.&nbsp; IF you want a stable GFS from RedHat ... use RHEL and GFS 6.&nbsp; \
If you want to use another distro and another GFS ... great ... just don't complain \
that it is not stable. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>

&gt;At least that is what I got out of the posts ... maybe \
I'm wrong though

Sure, thought you should appreciate that for people who've been off 2.4
and in production on 2.6 for a long time, comments like &quot;you should be
using 2.4&quot; are a little redundant.</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Again ... you are the person who chooses what technology you deploy ... but RedHat is \
going to put out stable products for their supported RHEL.&nbsp; If you can make it \
work on a different distro with a different kernel, great. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Regards,
Gareth.

Johnny Hughes
HughesJR.com &lt;</FONT><A \
HREF="http://www.hughesjr.com"><U>http://www.hughesjr.com</U></A><FONT \
COLOR="#737373">&gt;  	 </I></FONT></PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>Johnny Hughes</PRE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 