Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
> On another thread, has anybody here know how much GFS > and OpenGFS merged? None at all (ie. zero merging has taken place). A better question is "how much did they diverge over the last 2 years?" The OpenGFS team is looking into that. ALso, Intel has had a person doing OpenGFS doc. for a while now. Hopefully most of the OpenGFS documentation will be applicable to GFS and will therefore get merged into GFS. > Are they still merge-able? Don't know, but even if not, GFS will likely be a long term player. > Is one or > the other be better to be include w/ DRBD? My guess is that OpenGFS will never be ported to the 2.6 kernel, so if you are interested in 2.6, you need to look at GFS. If for some reason the OpenGFS team decides GFS in 2.6 is too broken, then porting OpenGFS will be considered as a backup. ======================> Totally different idea that may meet your requirements. The OpenSSI project is busy putting a CFS (Cluster File System) above DRBD. I believe they have it basically working except for fault-tolerance if drbd is used on the boot disk, and they are actively working on that. With that approach, all the nodes in the cluster have "local" read/write access to the drive, but in reality, all I/O is shipped to a disk master. DRBD is used to keep a mirrored backup ready to go. If the master fails, the backup takes over. HTH Greg -- Greg Freemyer