-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/2014 02:42 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 12:18 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> I agree switching from ext4 to XFS is likely not worthwhile.
>
> Whether Server WG goes with ext4 or XFS on LVM, it's worthwhile
> for Workstation WG to mimic it merely due to simplicity because
> then we don't need separate installers or composes.
I'm broadly in agreement with Chris here. I don't see that any
'plain partition' filesystem has such a huge difference to the
other that it makes much sense for us to have two products using
'plain partition' filesystems, by default, but *different* ones.
Choosing btrfs by default is a controversial option, but it's at
least clearly one with very different results from picking a 'plain
partition' filesystem (whether backed by LVM or not). I don't
really see the point in having ext4 for one and xfs for the other.
If the only argument for desktop to keep ext4 if server goes xfs is
'btrfs conversion!', I'm with cmurf that that's not a compelling
argument at all.
The elephant in the room here seems to be LVM backing, I don't see
anyone discussing that. Do desktop and server want to keep LVM
backing by default if they don't go with btrfs? Do desktop and
server have *differing* perspectives there? (Do we want to re-run
the Fedora 18 tape where we switch to no LVM backing by default and
then have to go back to LVM by default for some reason I've
forgotten?)
I can only speak for myself, but regardless of whether Server picks
ext4 or XFS, I think we definitely want it to be on LVM. (LVM
thin-provisioning is another can of worms, but let's talk about that
separately).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlMORbgACgkQeiVVYja6o6PVfgCgho9eNbvlc0q35Oi1aN+7ZuVE
XvgAn36jLQc2kkEZ/Bhzt+5LM+HeKpxF
=O0cd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----