recommendations on how to recover a corrupted, LVM-based hard drive?

[Chris Murphy]

On Feb 15, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 03:15:13PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> What's the basis for a "two years out" assessment? I'm not finding a
>> related FOSDEM or DevConf session where this was discussed. Has anyone who
>> was present for these conversations written about it yet?
> 
> Hallway talk, I'm afraid. However, we talked about actually having a session
> (or even a mini-track, if there's a lot of interest) at the next Flock about
> the near- and medium-term future of filesystems in Fedora.

Is Fedora.next to be biased toward production or testing? Should the user make that choice, and if so what changes are needed in the installer for them to effectively make that choice? Are the decision makers capable of saying "no" and actually establishing a handful of installed layouts?

Right now the installer's auto/guided/easy path permits about 80 testable outcomes. And yet not one of them permits Fedora 20 to be installed along side Fedora 19. And not one permits a prior linux OS to be replaced while keeping /home.

For comparison, Windows and OS X installers present two and one layout outcomes respectively. Both permit the prior version to be replaced while keeping user data, and both permit a new version to install along side an older version.

And custom partitioning is explosively more complex. It has so many combinations that most have no test case written. QA couldn't perform those tests even if they did exist. Users have no way of knowing what layouts are recommended, what's somewhat well tested, and what's received little if any testing at all.

I while think Fedora would be next to nowhere without the installer, and that it's ahead of other distro installers when it comes to LVM thinp and Btrfs layout creation, it's enabling edge cases: rootfs on XFS on LVM on encrypted raid6. Really, that's an option.


Chris Murphy