default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 20:11 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:

> There are advantages for server using XFS, even for the smaller
> percent (?) who may end up using the default installation path.
> There's no negative I think of for Workstation using XFS. So I'd say
> make them both XFS.

The xfs negative I can see is the resizing thing. That's about it,
really. (For anyone who's not aware: you can't shrink xfs partitions,
currently. That means that people won't be able to shrink their Fedora
install to install something else alongside it later).

I don't think we'll have much to worry about in terms of everything
exploding when we switch. xfs is a well known quantity that anaconda's
supported for years, that is being used for RHEL 7, that we're pretty
comfortable with. I really do expect that, if both server and desktop
are happy with it, we could just flip the switch in anaconda next week
and everything would keep working.

> 
> > Basically, what I'm saying is that if Desktop would be OK with using
> > xfs-on-LVM as default with all choices demoted to custom partitioning
> > (no dropdown), as Server has currently agreed on, that'd be great.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> > Right now we seem to be sleepwalking into a situation where server and
> > desktop diverge but no-one particularly *wants* that, which seems a bit
> > off.
> 
> Yeah. I pretty much see it as an LVM question. If not LVM, sure ext4
> meets the requirements and it's a very slightly simpler layout because
> we'd need an ext4 boot anyway. If yes to LVM, just do what Server is
> doing. Workstation isn't hurt by it.

Agreed.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net