On 10/6/14 7:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/06/2014 02:29 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > >> Now, there is another question which has not been voiced: what is >> the "plan" for filessystems in Fedora (and by implication RHEL)? >> Is it BTRFS? Or, perhaps is it LVM with XFS? IIRC, some time ago >> it was stated that the plan was to move to BTRFS. It is not clear >> to me that everyone is onboard with that decision. Or, perhaps >> that decision is being reconsidered. > > Let me answer from the position of a mere user. It's not clear to me > why and when users should switch to BTRFS or xfs or else, nor am I > not interested in using anything which would potentially endanger > existing installations (So far, reports I am reading from openSUSE > users don't necessarily sound convincing). > > In other words, you'd have to do a lot of marketing and convincing > work to persuade users to use BTRFS/xfs etc. > > Ralf I think this is an important point. To make a fundamental change like this, the rationale and benefits need to be very clearly spelled out, and not just chase the new hotness (although 6-7 years in, I'm not sure btrfs can be called new? XFS certainly can't!) ;) IOWs, I'd like to see much more than "because it can do snapshots and checksums" as the rationale; there are most definitely interesting things that btrfs can do (or is working on doing), but as btrfs has evolved, so has the rest of the Linux storage ecosystem: DM thin provisioning, xfs and ext4 metadata checksums, System Storage Manager (SSM) aiming for administration ease, etc. It's up to those proposing a new default to clearly spell out the compelling advantage to the change. -Eric -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
