default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Feb 25 23:04:30 UTC 2014


On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 15:53 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> adding desktop@ since they are also looking at file system options
> 
> On Feb 25, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >> === File system ===
> >> 
> >> The default file system type for workstation installs should be 
> >> btrfs.
> > 
> > The default file system is definitely up for some debate, but I'd make
> > an argument for using XFS atop LVM[1] for the default filesystem in
> > the Fedora Server, at least in part because Red Hat's storage experts
> > have done the research for us already and determined that XFS is the
> > recommended fit for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.
> 
> XFS is a really good idea for Server.
> 
> Follow-up questions: 
> 
> - Can Server and Workstation WG's choose different defaults for their
> product's installers?

Given my understanding of anaconda's architecture I don't believe this
would *technically* present a significant problem. anaconda already has
the concept of being used to install different products, and using
different defaults for various things depending on what product it's
being used to install: this is how RHEL can have different defaults from
Fedora.

It would be best to ask the anaconda devs, though. Maybe they think it's
a horrible hack and don't want to extend it any further than their
paychecks require. CCing bcl and dcantrell.

In terms of *policy*, it'd be up to FESCo, I guess. It seems like a
perfectly reasonable point of variance between products to me.

> - Other than lack of shrink support in XFS, I'd say XFS is suitable
> for Workstation as well. Would the Workstation WG have concerns about
> the lack of fs shrink support in the default file system? [1]
> 
> > 
> > Btrfs still makes me somewhat nervous, given that its upstream doesn't
> > consider it stable[3].
> 
> That wiki entry appears old. The stable aspect was about disk format,
> which is now stable. And also the experimental description was removed
> in kernel 3.13. [2]

<snip>

In addition to Chris' points, we discussed btrfs at this week's QA
meeting, and agreed that even though it's really not QA's 'job', it
seems sensible to just check if Desktop WG has talked to the devs who
have, up until now, been taking the job of deciding when btrfs is 'ready
for primetime' and developed a plan. Is the btrfs-by-default part of the
current tech spec more of a long term aspiration, or is it on the table
for F21? Have the concerns about its readiness been evaluated and
checked with the domain experts?

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



More information about the server mailing list