[Ocfs2-users] OCFS2 support for RHEL 6.4

[Ram Smith]

Thank you David for expressing my own sentiment precisely.

We too have a few RedHat 5 servers straggling behind in our environment 
with ocfs2 1.4.x and we wont be going to OL6.

ram.


On 24/04/14 03:50, David Johle wrote:
> "All practical purposes" except the extremely practical purpose of
> having shared filesystems in a cluster.
>
> I can see that RedHat may have interest in refusing to allow OCFS2 on
> RHEL because it conflicts with their own GFS2 product offering.  And
> I can see that Oracle may have interest in refusing to allow OCFS2 on
> RHEL because that conflicts with their own OL6 product offering.
>
> Sure, the OL6 may be "pay less for better support" but when a shop
> has a large quantity of RHEL6 systems already, and wants to use just
> a few of them with OCFS2, it complicates things if those boxen have
> to run the slightly different OL6 instead (more support contracts to
> manage, different patch/upgrade lifecycles to follow, etc.).
>
> So tell me Herbert, is it actually a technical limitation, or was the
> decision to not support RHEL6 politically motivated?
> (Politically meaning a corporate and/or financial conflict of interest)
>
> As it stands, I have a handful of systems that are "stuck" on RHEL5 +
> OCFS2 1.4.x for the time being because I would have to replace them
> with OL6 instead of RHEL6 if I want to upgrade either one of the OS
> or the OCFS2 version.  All these years (since the early OCFS2 1.2.x
> on RHEL4) we had been strung along with the almost instant RHEL RPM
> releases.  Then came mainline kernel acceptance of OCFS2, and we were
> even happier and more confident that it was okay to rely on this
> filesystem for years to come.
>
> I was kinda bummed when the no RHEL6 thing came about, and really
> hate to think it's due to upper management style decision making, as
> that is very much against a lot of the principles behind Linux & Open
> Source in general.
>
>
>