On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV <jwharshaw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it. > > > > What filesystems are we considering? > > It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on LVM. As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to wind up with server and desktop having defaults that are very similar but slightly different, for no apparently great reason. ext4 and xfs are basically what I refer to as 'plain' filesystems (i.e. not all souped-up btrfs/zfs stuff), they're stable, mature, and generally good-enough for just about all cases. Is xfs really so much better for servers, and ext4 so much better for desktops, that it's worth the extra development/maintenance to allow Desktop to use ext4 and Server to use xfs? 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. Or if we could otherwise achieve agreement on something. 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. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
