Thanks for the feedback guys! I made the changes you suggested except I called the devices underneath "disks" instead of "drives" - since it'll be a VM, I think they are called "virtual disks" so I thought using the "disk" terminology might be more familiar. Does that make sense, or do you still think "drive" is better? Let me know what you think, you can shift-reload for the new version: http://linuxgrrl.com/fedora-ux/Projects/Anaconda/Usability/Tasks/RAID-Config.png On Wed 23 Jan 2013 09:28:30 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote: > And honestly, I'd add two zeros onto everything. As long as > the virtual disk image isn't preallocated, and allowed to > grow dynamically, it won't bust the volume its stored on. > But such sizes are a more realistic test. You mean making all the sizes of everything bigger? The only thing is by default, virt-manager doesn't do dynamic growing by default, so it's one more thing you have to worry about when resetting the test for new participants - and to delete the old VM's storage is another additional click you have to remember - so I just want to make sure the test goes as smoothly as possible and that there's no unintentional complications that the usability tests will have to deal with. Are there specific issues you think might crop up with the smaller sizes that wouldn't crop up with a larger? The only one I know of is that BTRFS has problems with really small disk sizes like this, but we're not doing any BTRFS scenarios in the test. ~m _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
