[Ocfs2-users] future of ocfs2

[Sunil Mushran]

I am puzzled as to why you have not just gone to git.kernel.org and  
seen the change logs in Linus' tree. If you did, you would actually  
see the work that is going on. And what you would see is that a lot of  
work is going on. Just during 2.6.29's merge window, we have added  
support for posix acls, security attributes, user/group quotas and  
metadata checksumming. In the next kernel we hope to add indexed  
directories among other features. The ocfs2 doc page maintains a list  
of the features that are being added in mainline.

Your qs is not new. I have heard people speculate about ocfs2's future  
for many years now. First it was ASM. Now something else. While I  
cannot comment specifically on the blog post, all I can say is that  
ocfs2's future is very bright. It is already being shipped by 2 of 3  
enterprise distros and almost all non-enterprise distros including  
Fedora. While we did start with a database focus, we have expanded our  
user base to well beyond that. And we do not plan on slowing down  
anytime soon.

Sunil Mushran

On Feb 5, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Jeremy Schneider <jeremy.schneider at ardentperf.com 
 > wrote:

> At the company where I'm working right now, I'm part of an  
> architecture
> effort to come up with our standard design for RAC on Linux across the
> firm. There will be dozens or possibly hundreds of deployments  
> globally
> using the design we settle on.
>
> We're internally debating whether or not we should include OCFS2 in  
> this
> design right now, and I'm curious if anyone has arguments one way or  
> the
> other to share. Our standard design on Solaris does utilize a cluster
> filesystem and we would welcome a similar design, but there are some
> concerns about the readiness, stability and future of OCFS2.
>
> OCFS2 is being considered for these four use cases:
> - database binaries (vs local files or NFS)
> - diag top (11g) or admin tree (10g) (vs local files or NFS)
> - archived logs
> - backups
>
> Other files will be stored in ASM.
>
> I have seen mention in blogs such as
> http://bigdaveroberts.wordpress.com/ of something called ASMFS in  
> 11gR2
> and I'm wondering - will this feature (if included) have any impact on
> Oracle's commitment to OCFS2 development? Could Oracle conceivably
> develop a whole new cluster filesystem and put their full weight  
> behind
> it as they did for ASM storage, leaving OCFS2 as a lower priority for
> new features and improvements? Has Oracle demonstrated significant
> commitment to OCFS2 development and support in the past, and is this a
> mature enough technology for wide-scale deployment?
>
> Just looking for opinions. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
> -- 
> Jeremy Schneider
> Chicago, IL
> http://www.ardentperf.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs2-users mailing list
> Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com
> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users