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
(a) use the firmware's built-in boot manager to choose what will
probably appear to be identically named Fedora's (b) add new NVRAM
entries, and names, and switch between them before reboot by using
efibootmgr --bootorder or --bootnext.
Another option is shared ESP and /boot but my vague recollection is
some things go away. For sure /boot/efi/EFI/fedora is replaced, and
then possibly /boot/loader/entries are replaced. But that might be
easier to deal with than the above, and more efficient.
--
Chris Murphy