Re: I would like to propose that we turn on XFS Reflink in Fedora 29 by default

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> > On 28/04/18 14:55, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> We are adding some features to container projects for User Namespace
>> >>> support
>> >>> that can take advantage of XFS Reflink.  I have talked to some of the
>> >>> XFS
>> >>> Reflink kernel engineers in Red Hat and they have informed me that
>> >>> they
>> >>> believe it is ready to be turned on by default.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not sure who in Red Hat I should talk to about this? Whether we
>> >>> should
>> >>> turn it on in the installer or in the mkfs.xfs command?
>> >>>
>> >>> Who should I be talking to?  To make this happen.
>> >> I would speak to Eric Sandeen I believe he's the Red Hat maintainer
>> >> (or one of them) of XFS.
>> >>
>> >> Peter
>> > Indeed, and also we should look at this in the context of what is done
>> > for upstream. Ideally Fedora would just inherit the changes there, and there
>> > should not be anything special required for Fedora,
>> >
>> > Steve.
>>
>> So, for context, I am the upstream maintainer of xfsprogs as well as for
>> Fedora xfsprogs.
>>
>> Historically, new features in XFS have gone from "Experimental" (i.e.
>> under
>> development), then dropped Experimental (development is ~done) but still
>> optional,
>> and eventually default.  We do this very conservatively, to give bugs a
>> chance
>> to shake out, which is one of the reasons XFS has a good reputation for
>> /not/
>> eating your data.
>>
>> Reflink on XFS only recently dropped "Experimental" and is not yet default
>> upstream;
>> it won't be default upstream for some time to come - think on the order of
>> months.
>>
>> However, we do want to give reflink more exposure, and so jumping the gun
>> a bit and
>> turning it on for rawhide / Fedora 29 is probably a good idea.
>>
>> I'm mostly ok with patching it on by default in mkfs.xfs; it does confuse
>> things a bit
>> when "our" version behaves fundamentally differently from upstream, but
>> it's probably
>> the right thing to do here.  I'll make sure that none of the other xfs
>> developers have
>> strong objections, and if not, I'll patch it in for fedora 29.
>>
>> Unless this should be a full blown Feature?  If so, I'm ok with following
>> that path
>> as well.
>
>
>
> XFS is the default filesystem on Fedora Server Edition, so yes: I think we
> should really have a System-Wide Change Proposal submitted for this,
> primarily to ensure that the information is spread widely (Change Proposals
> like this are picked up by Fedora Marketing and tech news, so it’ll be more
> widely dispersed than just on the fedora-devel list).

Assuming that the plan is to leave it enabled in F-29 on branching and
have it ship enabled in F-29 I agree, if the intention is to leave it
enabled in rawhide and disable it on branching then the Change
Proposal mechanism isn't the way to ensure wider knowledge.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux