default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Josh Boyer jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Wed Feb 26 20:24:04 UTC 2014


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> 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.

So my answer was primarily under the premise of Workstation alone.  If
Server switches to XFS, then yeah maybe using XFS on Workstation makes
more sense.  If Server doesn't, then there's really no benefit to
Workstation doing that.  I think we're in violent agreement on this,
so we can stop emailing about it now.

> 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'm not sure on the Workstation front.  The dm-thinp stuff might be a
solution to some of the snapshotting features btrfs would provide, but
I think that doesn't necessitate LVM thinp.  (IIRC, Alexander Larsson
found raw dm-thinp to be more usable and performant for his Docker
stuff too.)  It's something we'll have to take up within the WG.

josh


More information about the devel mailing list