On 2/27/14, 10:53 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > > On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Chris Murphy wrote: >>>> by default we put ext4 on LVM >>> The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently. >> It can be done, the convert tool should work, and Btrfs should work on any device mapper instance. However… >> >> In the context of the default ext4+LVM layout the conversion still means separate /boot, /, and /home file systems. A major benefit of the Btrfs layout is these are subvolumes, which instead draw space from one volume pool. And that's lost with a conversion strategy. It also means going from a Fedora "standard" layout to a distinctly non-standard one because our Btrfs layout isn't like the result you'd get from what you're talking about. >> >> >> Chris Murphy > > A question I have, forgive me if it seems stupid, is why not just > change the standard? From what I have seen is that btrfs is superior > to ext4 as even Theodore T'so (creator of ext4) said btrfs "offers > improvements in scalability, reliability, and ease of management". Yes, that is a thing on Wikipedia isn't it. ;) It's referring to a discussion held 5 years ago. > I > feel that eventually other filesystems may show to be better than > ext4 and we probably will need to change the standards for the sake > of quality. My fear is that we will be sacrificing quality for not > having too change much. I'll see your 5-year-old quote from the ext4 maintainer, and raise you a 1-day-old quote from a btrfs maintainer: "Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks, Josef." If and when btrfs becomes a superior solution, I'm sure Fedora will be eager to ship it. -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
