On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:12 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 see the "install something else alongside Fedora" made most straightforward with plain ext4. [1] LVMthinp is a technically better workaround, even better than ext4 shrink, but it's esoteric. It requires the same capability as [1] but in addition the 2nd installer needs to: a. understand LVMthinp, b. permit thinpool overcomit which even anaconda presently doesn't. [2] Therefore if plaint ext4 isn't on the table for Workstation, we're back to Workstation (ideally) mimicking what Server does. Chris Murphy [1] Even with ext4+LVM it would mean either a.) two something's sharing one /boot, i.e. doable but not best practices; or .b) the followup installer has do LVM gymnastics galore to extract space for a new plain partition. I don't even know if anaconda custom partitioning does that. [2] Anaconda is probably being overly conservative, by disallowing any amount of overcommitting, which is the whole idea behind thin provisioning: setting the maximum practical size for each file system's LV, and do a one time format, and the LV only takes from the thinpool what it actually uses. It obviates both grow and shrink resizing. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
