On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:07 AM, Martin Kolman <mkolman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 18:16 +0000, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > "CW" == Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > CW> I'd say it makes sense to revisit the default here globally in >> > CW> Anaconda. >> > Maybe. Have the issues which made XFS less suitable for use on laptops >> > been resolved? The primary one I recall was that each mounted >> > filesystem would have a corresponding kernel thread doing about 20 >> > wakeups per second. This was not really good for battery life and power >> > consumption in general. >> > Last I checked (which was 2016 or so) those wakeups were slated to be >> > around for a while longer. >> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg40210.html >> >> >> And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being able to shrink. It's >> not particularly important in the server case, but in the desktop/laptop >> case, it happens enough in my experience that I'm not sure I'd want a >> default filesystem that can't shrink. > What about putting it on top of a thin-LV then ? With over provisioning you > could even share space efficiently between root & home and would get other > features such as efficient CoW snapshots. There's one option that meets the discussion requirements without the fragile out of space, harder to fix, obscure errors and warnings, and byzantine interface of LVM (thinp). And that option has had stable reflink copies, snapshots, and online resize (shrink and grow) for over 6 years; and is actually being used by thousands of ordinary desktop Linux users; and without the handholding that LVM requires or confusion it induces. First order of business for making LVM thinp a default for Workstation: a one cycle release of the code of conduct for the Fedora Community as it pertains to the change, so they can feel free to ask things like "what kind of drugs were you guys on when making this decision?" And I say this as a user of LVM thinp for VM's and my fifth backup system (sorta funny, do I trust it? Or don't I? I trust it but hope to god I don't have to? Yes.) > Of course as with any thin-provisioning you are also giving up things, > such as easily finding out how much free space is actually available to > a given storage volume. Giving up things like sanity and time as well. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm completely serious. I've volunteered for the experience, it's bad ass in many ways, but it is not something I'd foist on the community by default. I'm vaguely open to the idea of Server using it, but mostly skeptical. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
