On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Christian Schaller <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I agree with Matthew here that if we are going with btrfs for the medium/long term, then > that has an impact on our decision for default filesystem in the short term. To me it > seems like switching to XFS for the workstation doesn't make sense if we still want to > get onto btrfs at some point. It just means we will find ourselves with our users > spread across one more filesystem medium/long term. Right. Workstation gets no benefit from switching to XFS other than it makes QA happier (for fairly valid reasons). If Server wasn't switching, this wouldn't even be a conversation. I think we'll likely just have to stick with ext4 and pitch in on the UI and QA fronts if that somehow leads to major burden. I expect Server will need to do the same for the XFS route as well. > The harder question is to what degree we are able to trust in btrfs 'getting there' > within a given timeframe. On the other hand if Suse ships it then > we should at least be able to go to the limited feature version they use at some point. I think it's something we (the FS and Fedora kernel people) will really have to keep an eye on. This _are_ improving, so it's a matter of timeframes really. I'm still hoping to get a talk on it at Flock, and then reassess for the next Workstation release. In the meantime, I guess I'll be booting more machines with btrfs to play along. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
