On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. > > In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can > do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I > don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am > concerned that this will lead to less testing and exposure to full LVM > use within the Fedora community. Instead, I'd like to counter-propose > that everything stay exactly as it is, with users being able to elect to > switch to BTRFS (sub)volumes if they are interested in doing so. > > Should the switch to BTRFS by default happen, this will be one more > thing I will have to fix immediately during installation. The list grows > longer and longer over time - please don't make this change. > Theres no sense in using LVM if BTRFS can do the same job better. I'm not suggesting removing LVM altogether, just not using it for the default "pick the layout for me" option, you can always do your own thing with a custom layout. Josef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
