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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
