default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Adam Williamson]

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?)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net