On 5/2/18 8:42 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 05/02/2018 08:25 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> I've always seen the need for shrink as an indicator that someone had >> poor planning along the way, or insufficient tools for provisioning to >> start with. Sure, there are exceptions, but in general who needs shrink >> on a regular basis? > > The point isn't so much that you need it on a regular basis, it's that > when you need it, you *really* need it. Given that it is exception activity, dump/mks/restore is also a less convenient but more robust solution to the problem. I mostly want to point out that shrink permanently de-optimizes your filesystem, and carries some risk as well, especially if you have no backups. > I'll buy the poor planning argument on a server that does pretty much > the same thing for the entirety of its life/deployment, but the case of > a laptop/desktop that goes years without being reinstalled, and then > unexpectedly needs tens of gigabytes of space to bisect a kernel bug > is very different. If you're putting your years-old root or home filesystem at risk to bisect a bug I'd humbly suggest that an external or additional disk might be more suited to the task. I don't have any real horse in this race - if Fedora feels that shrink capability trumps features like reflink, that's fine. Just offering my thoughts on the matter, and trying to point out that shrink has its downsides. -Eric _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
