On 1/29/25 4:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 03:11:43PM -0500, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> On 1/22/25 7:17 AM, mkolman@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 11:19 +0100, Simon de Vlieger wrote: >>>> Hi Neal (and Dusty), >>>> >>>> On 1/15/25 11:53 PM, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: >>>>> EROFS is considerably more actively developed than SquashFS, and >>>>> offers more modern file system features that can be utilized in the >>>>> future. >>>> >>>> Reading some through some of the thread it seems the main motivation >>>> is >>>> consolidation of tooling across the OCI, RHEL, and (through OCI) >>>> Flatpak >>>> landscape. Could you maybe add that little blurb to the change >>>> proposal >>>> wiki? >>>> >>>> >>>> Aside; I'm perhaps a bit conservative in this regard but it seems >>>> EROFS >>>> offers no direct benefit in the short term (reading some of this >>>> thread >>>> it actually seems to come with some drawbacks, which the >>>> maintainer(s) >>>> are trying to address in their spare time?). >>>> >>>> Could you expand on the benefits and possible future benefits that >>>> make >>>> the change necessary? >>> Yeah - I do wonder the benefits are really larger than the risks, given >>> the performance/efficiency issues & unclear timeline for those issues >>> to be resolved. >>> >>> Do we really need to rush this now instead of waiting for the issues to >>> be resolved first & then switching to an objectively better FS ? >> >> From my side (I'm a co-owner of the proposal) I'm interested mainly in >> upstream and downstream alignment between the Fedora CoreOS and RHEL CoreOS >> ISO images. It appears erofs is where we are headed in the future and I'd >> like to get out ahead of it and do things upstream first. >> >> We do test the Fedora CoreOS install media on every pipeline run (i.e. if >> we don't pass tests we don't ship anything), so presumably if erofs proves >> unreliable we just won't ship it. >> >> Ultimately for our users this should be a transparent change without requiring >> any action on their part. > > In the discussions around the proposal, some measurements that showed > significant degradation of compression ratios, compression times, and > decompression times. Do we have some measurements of all those things > after the latest improvements? Added some numbers from the FCOS side to the change page. Neal is going to add some numbers from the Kiwi side too. > > So far the only concrete benefit is the alignment of RHEL and Fedora. > But this isn't even mentioned in the proposal. I think it'd have been > better to have that there, with an explanation why the alignment is > useful. You are right. I added some wording there to mention the RHEL 10 change and its significance here. > > Otherwise, we're buying a pig in a poke. As Simon de Vlieger wrote > above, there certainly are risks and costs with a switch like this, > and the benefits are not really being shown right now. > > Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
