Wim Coekaerts wrote: > let's all take a breather here. > > I don't think sunil wanted to state that no one can give their opinion. > > We try our best to make things work well and want to make sure that > when someone makes a statement it's clear that this is their > statement. Alexei tends to also be pretty rough in his posts and for > people working hard on something that can get very difficult at times > as well. what it comes down to is that alexei has his strong opinions > and are as such - his personal opinions. > > when it comes down to what is formally supported, the certification > matrix is the source of truth. as always its possible to find an > individual that makes a certain recommendation in the support > organization and that might sometimes conflict with other > recommendations. what it comes down to is that if you run oracle rdbms > on ocfs2 you get support, if that somehow gets denied, you should > escalate that, it's a supported configuration of use. whether someone > recommends against it or not. problems should get addressed/resolved. > > but that's separate from ocfs2 the open source project of course. > > Wim > > > I reread my statements and thought they were too harsh. I apologize.
rcr > Randy Ramsdell wrote: >> Sunil Mushran wrote: >> >>> None of what you have written allows you to use our resources to >>> spread your opinions as official recommendation. >>> >> >> I don't think he said that oracle doesn't recommend that solution. >> What about your resources? Are ext3 and heartbeat your resources? I want >> to hear Alexi's opinion as well as yours Sunil. >> >> RCR >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Alexei_Roudnev wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, you distribute and support OCFSv2; but Oracle is another story, >>>> and the >>>> common recommendation >>>> from many different Oracle engineers (not related to OCFSv2) is >>>> _don't use >>>> OCFS for RAC files /OCRFile and CSSFile/_. Which I fully agree - it >>>> don't >>>> have any benefits but a lot of headache. Using OCFSv2 for backups or >>>> archive >>>> logs is another story, for example. >>>> >>>> Oracle itself have not a SINGLE opinion (to be curious, I hear a >>>> strong >>>> recommendation against OCFSv2 from oracle support, which I can not >>>> agree >>>> with), so we can't treat your recommendations as official as well - >>>> you are >>>> interested in OCFSv2 while users are not (users are interested in >>>> making our >>>> data centers run smoothly). The only _official_ thing is >>>> _certification >>>> matrix_. >>>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ocfs2-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users >> > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
