Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-20 Thread Chris Murphy
Just in case this poor horse isn't suitably beaten yet. 1. Create 4 qcow2 files per qemu-img create -f qcow2 *.qcow2 120g Each qcow2 starts out 194K (not preallocated). q 2. Format each qcow2 mkfs.ext4 mkfs.ext4 -i 4096 mkfs.xfs mkfs.btrfs 3. mount each fs (mainly to be fair since ext4 does

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-20 Thread Colin Walters
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 05:17 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > So, just use XFS across the board (plus overlayfs on the persistent > storage for containers). Yeah, that's my vote. ___ cloud mailing list -- cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-16 Thread Chris Murphy
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > You'd need to > run all this by them and see if there's a way to do a mkfs.ext4 -i > 4096 for just Atomic Host installations, there's no point doing that > for workstation installations. Or just use XFS. Another

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-16 Thread Chris Murphy
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Inode exhaustion? > > If the installer is going to create the file system used for overlayfs > backing storage with ext4, that probably means mkfs.ext4 -i 4096 will > need to be used; so how does that get propagated

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-16 Thread Chris Murphy
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 09:57 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > >> That is correct, but changing a default like that might be a bad idea. >> My opinion is that it should happen on a major release boundary. > > One thing this

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-16 Thread Colin Walters
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 09:57 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > That is correct, but changing a default like that might be a bad idea. > My opinion is that it should happen on a major release boundary. One thing this impacts is the AH partitioning - it no longer makes sense by default with overlayfs.

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-15 Thread Dusty Mabe
On 09/15/2016 04:25 AM, Kushal Das wrote: > On 14/09/16, Adam Miller wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >>> >>> In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After >>> discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-15 Thread Matthew Miller
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:47:09PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Seems a little conservative, but I'm not opposed. > > I've been under the impression that part of the point of the Two Week > > Release cycle was to be able to deliver new stuff faster and fix > > issues faster but playing it safe

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-15 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:55:16PM +0530, Kushal Das wrote: > For two week atomic we are not tied with the Fedora 25 release cycle. We > can enable it in our release when we think it is ready for the > consumers. It does not have to wait F26 release. For example we see it > is in good condition

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-15 Thread Kushal Das
On 14/09/16, Adam Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > > In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After > > discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they recommend > > waiting to move to overlayfs as the

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-14 Thread Chris Murphy
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Jason Brooks wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After >> discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they recommend >>

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-14 Thread Josh Berkus
On 09/14/2016 02:32 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After >> discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they recommend >> waiting to move to overlayfs as

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-14 Thread Adam Miller
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After > discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they recommend > waiting to move to overlayfs as the default in F26. > > I think this will work

Re: overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-14 Thread Jason Brooks
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After > discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they recommend > waiting to move to overlayfs as the default in F26. > > I think this will work

overlayfs for AFTER Fedora 25

2016-09-14 Thread Dusty Mabe
In the cloud meeting today I brought up overlayfs and F25. After discussing with the engineers closer to the technology they recommend waiting to move to overlayfs as the default in F26. I think this will work well because it will give us some time to allow people to "try" overlayfs in F25 (we