From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262860AbVFVHmV (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:42:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262866AbVFVHk2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:40:28 -0400 Received: from rgminet02.oracle.com ([148.87.122.31]:51515 "EHLO rgminet02.oracle.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261872AbVFVFYQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:24:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:23:50 -0700 From: Wim Coekaerts To: Rik Van Riel Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: OCFS (was Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status) Message-ID: <20050622052349.GA4923@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> References: <20050620235458.5b437274.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:35:10PM -0400, Rik Van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > git-ocfs > The only problem I can see with this is that people will want > to use OCFS together with CLVM, and both use a different cluster > infrastructure. > > IMHO it would be good if they both used the same underlying > cluster infrastructure... as clvm stuff and infra get submitted and come around we will definitely be working with it. but it's a feature more than a requirement. altho we have every intend to make our stuff work with clvm and I think some pieces of ocfs2 are already being used or looked at to be used for this infrastructure so it's looking good. Wim