Issue with cockpit 34 server beta

[Peter Boy]

I just installed F34 Server build 20210416. (Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-34-20210416.n.0) and
tried cockpit. 

Under 'Devices‘ there are no devices listed and the menu button in this section only
shows „create RAID device“.

Usually there are the volume groups listed (among others) and I can create a new LV. 

Is there a new way to that in F34? Do I miss something? Or is something wrong? 



Best
Peter

[Chris Murphy]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 11:33 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:
>  I just installed F34 Server build 20210416. (Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-34-20210416.n.0)
> and tried cockpit.
>
>  Under 'Devices‘ there are no devices listed and the menu button in this section only
> shows „create RAID device“. 
If I click on Storage (on the left side UI), on the right side UI
under Devices I also have "No devices". Fedora 33, but Btrfs only. I
guess this "Devices" section means virtual block devices, in contrast
to physical block devices.


>  Usually there are the volume groups listed (among others) and I can
> create a new LV. 
I'd think so. Is cockpit-storaged installed?


-- 
Chris Murphy

[Martin Pitt]

Hello Peter,

Peter Boy [2021-04-17 19:33 +0200]:
>  I just installed F34 Server build 20210416.
> (Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-34-20210416.n.0) and tried cockpit. 
>  Under 'Devices‘ there are no devices listed and the menu button in this section only
> shows „create RAID device“.
>  Usually there are the volume groups listed (among others) and I can create a new LV. 
Do you have udisks2-lvm package installed? It's a recommends of
cockpit-storaged.

Martin

[Peter Boy]

Hello Martin,

it was not installed. After installation it works again. 

I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server Edition spin. In any
case, this should work out of the box.

Do you know, is there a bugzilla entry or is it already part of the ongoing fine tuning of
the F34 release? 


Thanks
Peter



>  Am 18.04.2021 um 10:24 schrieb Martin Pitt <mpitt(a)redhat.com&gt;:
>  
>  Hello Peter,
>  
>  Peter Boy [2021-04-17 19:33 +0200]:
> > I just installed F34 Server build 20210416.
> (Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-34-20210416.n.0) and tried cockpit. 
> > Under 'Devices‘ there are no devices listed and the menu button in this section
> only shows „create RAID device“.
> > Usually there are the volume groups listed (among others) and I can create a new LV.
>
>  
>  Do you have udisks2-lvm package installed? It's a recommends of
>  cockpit-storaged.
>  
>  Martin
>  _______________________________________________
>  server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Martin Pitt]

Peter Boy [2021-04-18 11:37 +0200]:
>  it was not installed. After installation it works again. 
>  
>  I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server Edition spin. In any
> case, this should work out of the box. 
cockpit-storaged has Recommends: udisks2-lvm, which is exactly right -- it does
work without it, but with less features. If you or server edition disabled
Recommends, that may be a bug somewhere else, of course.

Thanks,

Martin

[Stephen Gallagher]

Recommends are not included on the Server ISO but would be for the network
install.

The correct behavior here would be to add udisks2-lvm to the Server Edition
comps.xml definition to ensure it is included on the ISO.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:38 AM Martin Pitt <mpitt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Peter Boy [2021-04-18 11:37 +0200]:
>  > it was not installed. After installation it works again.
>  >
>  > I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server
>  Edition spin. In any case, this should work out of the box.
>
>  cockpit-storaged has Recommends: udisks2-lvm, which is exactly right -- it
>  does
>  work without it, but with less features. If you or server edition disabled
>  Recommends, that may be a bug somewhere else, of course.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Martin
>  _______________________________________________
>  server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>

[Peter Boy]

>  Am 18.04.2021 um 20:54 schrieb Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;:
>  
>  Recommends are not included on the Server ISO but would be for the network install.
Wondering, why recommends are included in network install but not in local install. What
is the rationale ?

>  The correct behavior here would be to add udisks2-lvm to the Server
> Edition comps.xml definition to ensure it is included on the ISO. 
What do we have to do to have it included? 


Peter







>  On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:38 AM Martin Pitt <mpitt(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  Peter Boy [2021-04-18 11:37 +0200]:
>  > it was not installed. After installation it works again. 
>  > 
>  > I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server Edition spin. In
> any case, this should work out of the box.
>  
>  cockpit-storaged has Recommends: udisks2-lvm, which is exactly right -- it does
>  work without it, but with less features. If you or server edition disabled
>  Recommends, that may be a bug somewhere else, of course.
>  
>  Thanks,
>  
>  Martin

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:24 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:

>  > Am 18.04.2021 um 20:54 schrieb Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;:
>  >
>  > Recommends are not included on the Server ISO but would be for the
>  network install.
>
>  Wondering, why recommends are included in network install but not in local
>  install. What is the rationale ?
>  
Space on disk. We only have so many bytes available on a DVD. Recommends
are literally things the system can do without. In this case, we don’t
*want* Server to do without it, so we should pull it in.



>  > The correct behavior here would be to add udisks2-lvm to the
> Server
>  Edition comps.xml definition to ensure it is included on the ISO.
>
>  What do we have to do to have it included?
>
>
>  Peter
>
>  
I’ll send a merge request for
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps later this morning.



>  > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:38 AM Martin Pitt <mpitt(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > Peter Boy [2021-04-18 11:37 +0200]:
>  > > it was not installed. After installation it works again.
>  > >
>  > > I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server
>  Edition spin. In any case, this should work out of the box.
>  >
>  > cockpit-storaged has Recommends: udisks2-lvm, which is exactly right --
>  it does
>  > work without it, but with less features. If you or server edition
>  disabled
>  > Recommends, that may be a bug somewhere else, of course.
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > Martin
>  _______________________________________________
>  server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:35 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:24 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Am 18.04.2021 um 20:54 schrieb Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;:
> > >
> > > Recommends are not included on the Server ISO but would be for the network
> install.
> >
> > Wondering, why recommends are included in network install but not in local install.
> What is the rationale ?
>
>
>  Space on disk. We only have so many bytes available on a DVD. Recommends are literally
> things the system can do without. In this case, we don’t *want* Server to do without it,
> so we should pull it in.
>
>
> >
> > > The correct behavior here would be to add udisks2-lvm to the Server Edition
> comps.xml definition to ensure it is included on the ISO.
> >
> > What do we have to do to have it included?
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
>  I’ll send a merge request for
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-comps later this morning. 
Actually, Peter: Can you please file a BZ about this and submit it for
consideration as a Freeze Exception? (You can use
https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug for this)

[Peter Boy]

>  Am 19.04.2021 um 15:01 schrieb Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;:
>  
> >> 
> > 
> > I’ll send a merge request for
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-comps later this morning.
>  
>  Actually, Peter: Can you please file a BZ about this and submit it for
>  consideration as a Freeze Exception? (You can use
>  https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug for this) 
Did my best, bug 1951062 proposed as freeze exception. I hope I did the right way.


Peter

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:32 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:
>  > Am 19.04.2021 um 15:01 schrieb Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;:
>  >
>  >>>
>  >>
>  >> I’ll send a merge request for
>  >> https://pagure.io/fedora-comps later this morning.
>  >
>  > Actually, Peter: Can you please file a BZ about this and submit it for
>  > consideration as a Freeze Exception? (You can use
>  > https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug for this)
>
>  Did my best, bug 1951062 proposed as freeze exception. I hope I did the right way.
>
>  
Thanks, Peter.

I'm CCing Martin on this because it occurs to me that we really should
have some more formal blocker criteria for Cockpit functionality in
the Server Edition. Currently, we only require that it is installed
and accessible on a default installation and that it can join
FreeIPA/Active Directory domains. However, Cockpit can do MUCH more
than that, and we should probably figure out what is the right minimum
set of functionality that Server Edition must provide.

I'll throw a couple ideas out to start things off:

== Storage ==
* It must be possible to enumerate all physically-attached drives.
* It must be possible to partition, format and mount physically attached drives.
* It must be possible to enumerate all network-attached drives.
* It must be possible to connect to a remote iSCSI target.
* It must be possible to connect to a remote NFS mount point.
* It must be possible to view the currently-active mount points on the system.

== Network ==
* It must be possible to configure the network to use automatic or
static IP addressing.
* It must be possible to enable or disable the firewall.
* It must be possible to allow or revoke access to individual ports
through the firewall.
* It must be possible to add custom network routes for a device.

== Services ==
* It must be possible to start, stop and restart system services.
* It must be possible to configure whether a system service starts
automatically at boot.
* It must be possible to mask system services so that they cannot be started.


== Software Updates ==
* It must be possible to install available software updates on a live system.
* It must be possible to choose to install security updates only.

== SELinux ==
* It must be possible to configure SELinux in enforcing or permissive mode.

[Martin Pitt]

Hello Stephen, all,

Stephen Gallagher [2021-04-19 12:44 -0400]:
>  I'm CCing Martin on this because it occurs to me that we really
> should
>  have some more formal blocker criteria for Cockpit functionality in
>  the Server Edition. 
Thanks for reviewing that! I compared that list against the other Recommends:
that we have.

>  == Storage == 
cockpit-storaged is by itself only a recommends of cockpit, but explicitly
mentioned in comps. ✔

>  * It must be possible to enumerate all physically-attached drives.
>  * It must be possible to partition, format and mount physically attached drives.
>  * It must be possible to enumerate all network-attached drives. 
✔

>  * It must be possible to connect to a remote iSCSI target. 
⚠ That would be udisks2-iscsi, which is only a Recommends and not in comps.

>  * It must be possible to connect to a remote NFS mount point.
>  * It must be possible to view the currently-active mount points on the system. 
✔

>  == Network ==
>  * It must be possible to configure the network to use automatic or
>  static IP addressing.
>  * It must be possible to enable or disable the firewall.
>  * It must be possible to allow or revoke access to individual ports
>  through the firewall.
>  * It must be possible to add custom network routes for a device. 
✔

The only thing I spotted is that NetworkManager-team is only a Recommends. Not
sure how important that is.

>  == Services ==
>  * It must be possible to start, stop and restart system services.
>  * It must be possible to configure whether a system service starts
>  automatically at boot.
>  * It must be possible to mask system services so that they cannot be started. 
✔

>  == Software Updates == 
Again, cockpit-packagekit is only a Recommends of cockpit, but explicitly in
comps.  ✔

>  * It must be possible to install available software updates on a live
> system.
>  * It must be possible to choose to install security updates only. 
⚠ However.. The new "tracer" feature is only a Recommends, so it may be prudent
to add python3-tracer to comps as well to move from a static "reboot
recommended" to an "offer service restarting if that is sufficient".

>  == SELinux ==
>  * It must be possible to configure SELinux in enforcing or permissive mode. 
 
✔

Thanks,

Pitti

[Peter Boy]

I just tested it server dvd install with rc 1.1
  
„device list“ doesn’t work so inclusion of udisks2-iscsi did not happen. 

Should we just wait vor rc 1.2 because the freeze exception was too late for this rc or do
we have to do something? 


Peter




>  Am 20.04.2021 um 14:58 schrieb Martin Pitt <mpitt(a)redhat.com&gt;:
>  
>  Hello Stephen, all,
>  
>  Stephen Gallagher [2021-04-19 12:44 -0400]:
> > I'm CCing Martin on this because it occurs to me that we really should
> > have some more formal blocker criteria for Cockpit functionality in
> > the Server Edition.
>  
>  Thanks for reviewing that! I compared that list against the other Recommends:
>  that we have.
>  
> > == Storage ==
>  
>  cockpit-storaged is by itself only a recommends of cockpit, but explicitly
>  mentioned in comps. ✔
>  
> > * It must be possible to enumerate all physically-attached drives.
> > * It must be possible to partition, format and mount physically attached drives.
> > * It must be possible to enumerate all network-attached drives.
>  
>  ✔
>  
> > * It must be possible to connect to a remote iSCSI target.
>  
>  ⚠ That would be udisks2-iscsi, which is only a Recommends and not in comps.
>  
> > * It must be possible to connect to a remote NFS mount point.
> > * It must be possible to view the currently-active mount points on the system.
>  
>  ✔
>  
> > == Network ==
> > * It must be possible to configure the network to use automatic or
> > static IP addressing.
> > * It must be possible to enable or disable the firewall.
> > * It must be possible to allow or revoke access to individual ports
> > through the firewall.
> > * It must be possible to add custom network routes for a device.
>  
>  ✔
>  
>  The only thing I spotted is that NetworkManager-team is only a Recommends. Not
>  sure how important that is.
>  
> > == Services ==
> > * It must be possible to start, stop and restart system services.
> > * It must be possible to configure whether a system service starts
> > automatically at boot.
> > * It must be possible to mask system services so that they cannot be started.
>  
>  ✔
>  
> > == Software Updates ==
>  
>  Again, cockpit-packagekit is only a Recommends of cockpit, but explicitly in
>  comps.  ✔
>  
> > * It must be possible to install available software updates on a live system.
> > * It must be possible to choose to install security updates only.
>  
>  ⚠ However.. The new "tracer" feature is only a Recommends, so it may be
> prudent
>  to add python3-tracer to comps as well to move from a static "reboot
>  recommended" to an "offer service restarting if that is sufficient".
>  
> > == SELinux ==
> > * It must be possible to configure SELinux in enforcing or permissive mode.
>  
>  ✔
>  
>  Thanks,
>  
>  Pitti
>  _______________________________________________
>  server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:54 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
>  I just tested it server dvd install with rc 1.1
>  
>  „device list“ doesn’t work so inclusion of udisks2-iscsi did not happen. 
>  
>  Should we just wait vor rc 1.2 because the freeze exception was too late for this rc or
> do we have to do something?  
No FE was proposed or approved for iSCSI, AFAICS. The FE that was
proposed and accepted:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951062

refers only to udisks2-lvm , and that's what the PR that was merged
added:

https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/647#

if udisks2-iscsi is wanted too, it should've been discussed in the FE
and added to the PR.

We're about to spin RC2, like, right now. If someone thinks this a big
problem and wants to fix it in the next fifteen minutes we can hold off
for a bit.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

[Peter Boy]

>  Am 23.04.2021 um 02:35 schrieb Adam Williamson
> <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  
>  On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:54 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
> > I just tested it server dvd install with rc 1.1
> > 
> > „device list“ doesn’t work so inclusion of udisks2-iscsi did not happen. 
> > 
> > Should we just wait vor rc 1.2 because the freeze exception was too late for this rc
> or do we have to do something? 
>  
>  No FE was proposed or approved for iSCSI, AFAICS. The FE that was
>  proposed and accepted:
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951062
>  
>  refers only to udisks2-lvm , and that's what the PR that was merged
>  added:
>  
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/647#
>  if udisks2-iscsi is wanted too, it should've been discussed in the FE
>  and added to the PR. 
Sorry, I had slipped in the lines of my notes.


But it’s even worse. 

The FE was about Include udisks2-lvm

The correct module name is udisks2-lvm2
(according to dnf search udisks)

In any case, udisks2-lvm2 was not included in rc1, hopefully it is in rc2?


And we have the same issue with additional modules, most important is

udisks2-iscsi.x86_64 : Module for iSCSI

which is an install option and a wider used storage strategy in the server world.

Additional modules are:


udisks2-zram.x86_64 : Module for ZRAM 
udisks2-lsm.x86_64 : Module for LSM 
udisks2-bcache.x86_64 : Module for Bcache

I cannot judge their relevance. Maybe no admin is interested in graphical support of the
swap area (zram).

Server is also missing 
udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS

BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.  


>  We're about to spin RC2, like, right now. If someone thinks this
> a big
>  problem and wants to fix it in the next fifteen minutes we can hold off
>  for a bit. 
Sorry, my time zone is 6 hours ahead. I am right now starting my day.

Is there a chance for rc3 ?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 07:09 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
>  
>  > Am 23.04.2021 um 02:35 schrieb Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  > 
>  > On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:54 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
>  > > I just tested it server dvd install with rc 1.1
>  > > 
>  > > „device list“ doesn’t work so inclusion of udisks2-iscsi did not happen. 
>  > > 
>  > > Should we just wait vor rc 1.2 because the freeze exception was too late for
> this rc or do we have to do something? 
>  > 
>  > No FE was proposed or approved for iSCSI, AFAICS. The FE that was
>  > proposed and accepted:
>  > 
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951062
>  > 
>  > refers only to udisks2-lvm , and that's what the PR that was merged
>  > added:
>  > 
>  > https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/647#
>  > if udisks2-iscsi is wanted too, it should've been discussed in the FE
>  > and added to the PR.
>  
>  Sorry, I had slipped in the lines of my notes.
>  
>  
>  But it’s even worse. 
>  
>  The FE was about Include udisks2-lvm
>  
>  The correct module name is udisks2-lvm2
>  (according to dnf search udisks)
>  
>  In any case, udisks2-lvm2 was not included in rc1, hopefully it is in rc2?
>  
>  
>  And we have the same issue with additional modules, most important is
>  
>  udisks2-iscsi.x86_64 : Module for iSCSI
>  
>  which is an install option and a wider used storage strategy in the server world.
>  
>  Additional modules are:
>  
>  
>  udisks2-zram.x86_64 : Module for ZRAM 
>  udisks2-lsm.x86_64 : Module for LSM 
>  udisks2-bcache.x86_64 : Module for Bcache
>  
>  I cannot judge their relevance. Maybe no admin is interested in graphical support of the
> swap area (zram).
>  
>  Server is also missing 
>  udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
>  
>  BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.  
>  
>  
>  > We're about to spin RC2, like, right now. If someone thinks this a big
>  > problem and wants to fix it in the next fifteen minutes we can hold off
>  > for a bit.
>  
>  Sorry, my time zone is 6 hours ahead. I am right now starting my day.
>  
>  Is there a chance for rc3 ?  
We didn't actually do rc2 yet as shenanigans ensued, so I'll tried and
get this fixed.

cockpit-storaged only Recommends udisks2-lvm2 and udisks2-iscsi , so
I'll just do those.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

[Peter Boy]

>  Am 23.04.2021 um 08:47 schrieb Adam Williamson
> <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  
>  On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 07:09 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
> > …
> > … 
> > 
> >> We're about to spin RC2, like, right now. If someone thinks this a big
> >> problem and wants to fix it in the next fifteen minutes we can hold off
> >> for a bit.
> > 
> > Sorry, my time zone is 6 hours ahead. I am right now starting my day.
> > 
> > Is there a chance for rc3 ? 
>  
>  We didn't actually do rc2 yet as shenanigans ensued, so I'll tried and
>  get this fixed.
>  
>  cockpit-storaged only Recommends udisks2-lvm2 and udisks2-iscsi , so
>  I'll just do those. 

That’s perfect. Thank you a lot. And sorry for the extra trouble. 


Peter

[Chris Murphy]

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:09 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:
>  Additional modules are:
>
>
>  udisks2-zram.x86_64 : Module for ZRAM
>  udisks2-lsm.x86_64 : Module for LSM
>  udisks2-bcache.x86_64 : Module for Bcache
>
>  I cannot judge their relevance. Maybe no admin is interested in graphical support of the
> swap area (zram). 
I don't think any of these have UI in Cockpit anyway.

>  Server is also missing
>  udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
>
>  BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that. 
It's not installed on Workstation by default either even though all
desktops default to using Btrfs. I'm pretty sure the udisks modules
don't do anything on their own, something needs to leverage their
functionality, e.g. GNOME Disk Utility, or in this case Cockpit.

Also, it's accurate to say Btrfs isn't the default on Fedora Server,
rather than saying it's not recommended.

-- 
Chris Murphy

[Peter Boy]

>  Am 23.04.2021 um 23:49 schrieb Chris Murphy
> <lists(a)colorremedies.com&gt;:
>  
>  On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:09 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:
> > 
>  
> > Server is also missing
> > udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
> > 
> > BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.
>  
>  It's not installed on Workstation by default either even though all
>  desktops default to using Btrfs. I'm pretty sure the udisks modules
>  don't do anything on their own, something needs to leverage their
>  functionality, e.g. GNOME Disk Utility, or in this case Cockpit. 
I didn’t check if I can work if BTRFS filesystem or generate one with Cockpit without that
module. I’ll do that later.

>  Also, it's accurate to say Btrfs isn't the default on Fedora
> Server,
>  rather than saying it's not recommended. 
You are perfectly right. It’s the more accurate wording. 

Peter


>  
>  -- 
>  Chris Murphy
>  _______________________________________________
>  server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Chris Murphy]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:20 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:
>  > Am 23.04.2021 um 23:49 schrieb Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com&gt;:
>  >
>  > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:09 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:
>  >>
>  >
>  >> Server is also missing
>  >> udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
>  >>
>  >> BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.
>  >
>  > It's not installed on Workstation by default either even though all
>  > desktops default to using Btrfs. I'm pretty sure the udisks modules
>  > don't do anything on their own, something needs to leverage their
>  > functionality, e.g. GNOME Disk Utility, or in this case Cockpit.
>
>  I didn’t check if I can work if BTRFS filesystem or generate one with Cockpit without
> that module. I’ll do that later. 
Doesn't matter whether udisks2-btrfs is present or not, it's not
possible to create a Btrfs file system with Cockpit. Near as I can
tell anyway. I'm pretty sure this is a regression, but I'd have to go
back a ways since the last time I tested creating file systems in
Cockpit.

The options are : XFS (recommended), ext4, VFAT, NTFS, and No
filesystem. This list isn't based on what mkfs are available. I've
got:
mkfs.btrfs   mkfs.erofs   mkfs.ext2    mkfs.ext4    mkfs.fat
mkfs.msdos   mkfs.udf     mkfs.xfs
mkfs.cramfs  mkfs.exfat   mkfs.ext3    mkfs.f2fs    mkfs.minix
mkfs.ntfs    mkfs.vfat

>  > Also, it's accurate to say Btrfs isn't the default on Fedora Server,
>  > rather than saying it's not recommended.
>
>  You are perfectly right. It’s the more accurate wording. 
I've pretty much only ever used Btrfs for Server edition installations
since the beginning of Server edition :D So I can recommend it, but I
understand that so far taking advantage of Btrfs features isn't a
priority for Cockpit development. They've expressed interest in
accepting features for it though.


-- 
Chris Murphy

[Martin Pitt]

Hello all,

Chris Murphy [2021-04-23 15:49 -0600]:
>  > udisks2-zram.x86_64 : Module for ZRAM
>  > udisks2-lsm.x86_64 : Module for LSM
>  > udisks2-bcache.x86_64 : Module for Bcache
>  > [...]
>  > Server is also missing
>  > udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
>  >
>  > I cannot judge their relevance. Maybe no admin is interested in graphical support of
> the swap area (zram).
>  
>  I don't think any of these have UI in Cockpit anyway. 
Right, only iscsi and lvm2 are used if available. Thanks for adding these two!

Martin