On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 20:11 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > There are advantages for server using XFS, even for the smaller > percent (?) who may end up using the default installation path. > There's no negative I think of for Workstation using XFS. So I'd say > make them both XFS. The xfs negative I can see is the resizing thing. That's about it, really. (For anyone who's not aware: you can't shrink xfs partitions, currently. That means that people won't be able to shrink their Fedora install to install something else alongside it later). I don't think we'll have much to worry about in terms of everything exploding when we switch. xfs is a well known quantity that anaconda's supported for years, that is being used for RHEL 7, that we're pretty comfortable with. I really do expect that, if both server and desktop are happy with it, we could just flip the switch in anaconda next week and everything would keep working. > > > 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. > > Yes. > > > > 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. > > Yeah. I pretty much see it as an LVM question. If not LVM, sure ext4 > meets the requirements and it's a very slightly simpler layout because > we'd need an ext4 boot anyway. If yes to LVM, just do what Server is > doing. Workstation isn't hurt by it. Agreed. -- 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
