xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RedHat Advanced Server and XFS

To: "Linux XFS (SGI)" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RedHat Advanced Server and XFS
From: Bill Anderson <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 00:11:25 -0600
In-reply-to: <3D6DA5A3.58D3B8AB@xxxxxxx>
References: <3D6DA5A3.58D3B8AB@xxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 22:40, John W wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I asked about doing that when looking at the product.
> 
> They were not willing to support the kernel issues if the Kernel were
> recompiled, or file system changed. That

Seems reasonable to me, you are modifying the system in ways they have
not tested and confirmed working. Kind of like putting a Chevy engine in
your new Dodge is not "supported" by Chrysler --even better it voids
your warranty. At least with RHAS, if you put the stock kernel (or one
of their upgraded ones) that is supported, you get your support.

> dang well makes it impossible to use XFS and have meaningful contract
> support from RH.
> 
> My response is to puchase additional liceneses of RHL at the $80 per
> year for RPM support.  Hope they understand that!

I build from the SRPMs they provide on their site. A bit time consuming
the first time, but provides nice test servers for various experiments.
:)

> Vendor pressure on customer somehow sounds like a real bad thing in a
> partner. Sounds like another Mighty OS vendor I have run across in
> travels.

What pressure? Either you use it in a configuration they can support and
get support, or you use it in a configuration they do not support, and
can't complain that they don't support it when you muck around in the
kernel. No pressure, just a choice on your end. :^)

As Eric noted, the best thing is to pressure them economically to put
XFS in there.
 
-- 
Bill Anderson
Immosys 
Rebuilding the network of Tomorrow


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>