vgoyal added a new comment to an issue you are following:
IIUC, you are saying that use a thin LV for rootfs to work around xfs shrink issue?
People have tried that in the past and there have been talks about that many a times.
There are still issues with xfs on top of thin lv and how no space situation is handled
etc. Bottom line, we are not there yet.
You mean thin pool exhaustion? Right now the atomic host default uses the docker
devicemapper driver which is XFS on a dm-thin pool. So I don't understand why one is
OK and the other isn't.
There are outstanding bugs and issues against that. Error handling was not graceful and
there were instances of container hanging if thin pool was full and only solution was to
reboot the system. So it is not fine as such. Just that we don't seem to have better
options. People have been talking about much closer interaction between xfs and thin pool
for quite some time.
Anaconda developers have tried setting thin pool out of box in the past and finally they
backed it out later due to various issues.
In short, putting rootfs on thin lv increases complexity of default setup and difficult to
recover if something is bad. (thin pool full). Lot of people don't like the idea of
doing over provisioning for
rootfs. They better have peach of mind with pre-allocated rootfs.
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email