On Mo, 06.07.20 20:06, Chris Murphy (lists(a)colorremedies.com) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 4:48 PM Gerald Henriksen
<ghenriks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:24:37 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:54:02AM +0000, Zbigniew J?drzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >> Making btrfs opt-in for F33 and (assuming the result go well) opt-out for
F34
> >> could be good option. I know technically it is already opt-in, but it's
not
> >> very visible or popular. We could make the btrfs option more prominent and
> >> ask people to pick it if they are ready to handle potential fallout.
> >
> >I'm leaning towards recommending this as well. I feel like we don't
have
> >good data to make a decision on -- the work that Red Hat did previously when
> >making a decision was 1) years ago and 2) server-focused, and the Facebook
> >production usage is encouraging but also not the same use case. I'm
> >particularly concerned about metadata corruption fragility as noted in the
> >Usenix paper. (It'd be nice if we could do something about that!)
>
> So if one has a spare partition to play with btrfs, is there an easy
> way to install a second copy of Fedora without having the /boot/efi/
> entries overwrite the existing Fedora installation? Or fix it to have
> 2 separate entries after the fact?
It's possible but has challenges. Separate ESP's you'll need to
either
Thou shallt not have multiple ESPs per disk. See:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16261695
The EFI spec is kinda vague about it, but it breaks everywhere, in
particular with Windows.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin