<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Josh Boyer <<a href="mailto:jwboyer@redhat.com">jwboyer@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div>[snip] <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers the business and community decisions going on here.<br>
><br>
> Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the same thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.<br>
<br>
It's a bug in CentOS 7 that was kept unfixed. The feature set from<br>
RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 remains consistent, with it only being available in<br>
the Resilient Storage AddOn.<br>
<br>
josh<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Josh,</div><div>you are talking about RHEL consistency, but the point is CentOS "feature set" passing from 7 to 8 that has changed.</div><div>As I see it:<br></div><div>In RH EL 7 there was a dedicated group (as a paid add-on) for Resilient storage, providing lvm2-cluster, gfs2, ecc.</div><div>In CentOS 7 that rpm recompiled yum group was made available to the community, so that at time of 7.2 for example I could transparently execute on my CentOS system:</div><div><br></div><div># yum groupinstall "Resilient Storage"<br>...<br>Dependencies Resolved<br><br>====================================================================================================<br> Package Arch Version Repository Size<br>====================================================================================================<br>Installing for group install "Resilient Storage":<br> dlm x86_64 4.0.6-1.el7 base 89 k<br> gfs2-utils x86_64 3.1.9-3.el7 base 302 k<br> lvm2-cluster x86_64 7:2.02.166-1.el7_3.1 updates 663 k<br>Installing for dependencies:<br> corosync x86_64 2.4.0-4.el7 base 213 k<br> corosynclib x86_64 2.4.0-4.el7 base 125 k<br> dlm-lib x86_64 4.0.6-1.el7 base 24 k<br> libqb x86_64 1.0-1.el7 base 92 k<br> resource-agents x86_64 3.9.5-82.el7_3.1 updates 360 k<br>Updating for dependencies:<br> device-mapper x86_64 7:1.02.135-1.el7_3.1 updates 269 k<br> device-mapper-event x86_64 7:1.02.135-1.el7_3.1 updates 177 k<br> device-mapper-event-libs x86_64 7:1.02.135-1.el7_3.1 updates 177 k<br> device-mapper-libs x86_64 7:1.02.135-1.el7_3.1 updates 333 k<br> device-mapper-persistent-data x86_64 0.6.3-1.el7 base 368 k<br> lvm2 x86_64 7:2.02.166-1.el7_3.1 updates 1.1 M<br> lvm2-libs x86_64 7:2.02.166-1.el7_3.1 updates 984 k<br><br>Transaction Summary<br>====================================================================================================<br>Install 3 Packages (+5 Dependent packages)<br>Upgrade ( 7 Dependent packages)</div><div><br></div><div> I think it was made for an explicit decision, not by mistake. One of the reasons could be the typical bi-directional contribution model, useful for both parts, the community and Red Hat to improve their product offering.<br></div><div>In RH EL 8 the group remains a paid add-on, so it is indeed consistent:</div><div><a href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/package_manifest/resilient-storage-addon">https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/package_manifest/resilient-storage-addon</a></div><div> But CentOS project (and/or) Red Hat decided not to provide its recompiled packages to the community.</div><div><br></div><div>Gianluca<br></div></div></div>