default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV <jwharshaw at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it.
> > 
> > What filesystems are we considering?
> 
> It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on LVM.

As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular
objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit
sub-optimal for us to wind up with server and desktop having defaults
that are very similar but slightly different, for no apparently great
reason.

ext4 and xfs are basically what I refer to as 'plain' filesystems (i.e.
not all souped-up btrfs/zfs stuff), they're stable, mature, and
generally good-enough for just about all cases. Is xfs really so much
better for servers, and ext4 so much better for desktops, that it's
worth the extra development/maintenance to allow Desktop to use ext4 and
Server to use xfs?

Basically, what I'm saying is that if Desktop would be OK with using
xfs-on-LVM as default with all choices demoted to custom partitioning
(no dropdown), as Server has currently agreed on, that'd be great. Or if
we could otherwise achieve agreement on something.

Right now we seem to be sleepwalking into a situation where server and
desktop diverge but no-one particularly *wants* that, which seems a bit
off.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net