On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Question for the cloud folks:
> >>
> >> I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to
> >> your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstation
> >> groups decide to settle on both using XFS-on-LVM for the main
> >> partitions, we could *probably* also compromise on using ext4 for just
> >> /boot.
> >
> > I don't think Cloud will use Anaconda UI, instead they use pre-built images
> > or kickstart and thus stick with plain ext4. If that remains the case, then
> > Server can still go with XFS on LVM.
> >
> >
> >> Directed more broadly at all three products:
> >>
> >> Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use ext4
> >> for /boot and XFS-on-LVM for all other partitions in the "guided"
> >> mode.
> >
> > Discussion by WG members should include whether there should be an
> > alternate, or only the default. Currently the guided UI has four choices.
> >
> > If yes to alternate option (rather than removing the Partition Scheme
> > pop-up altogether), here are several possibilities that make sense to me,
> > variations are possible. The default is listed first, the alternate second.
> >
> > "Existing default, new option for Server"
> >
> > SERVER WORKSTATION
> > ext4 /boot, LVM+ext4 same
> > ext4 /boot, LVM+XFS plain ext4
> >
> >
> >
> > "Existing default, new option for server and NextNewThing for Workstation"
> >
> > SERVER WORKSTATION
> > ext4 /boot, LVM+ext4 same
> > ext4 /boot, LVM+XFS Btrfs
> >
> >
> >
> > "Conservative default, NextNewThing for Server & Workstation"
> >
> > SERVER WORKSTATION
> > ext4 /boot, LVM+XFS same
> > ext4 /boot, LVMthinp+XFS Btrfs
> >
> >
> >
> > "Conservative default and alternate"
> >
> > SERVER WORKSTATION
> > ext4 /boot, LVM+XFS same
> > plain XFS* plain ext4
> >
> >
> >
> > "Better for Server, Easier for new/Windows/OS X users"
> >
> > SERVER WORKSTATION
> > ext4 /boot, LVM+XFS plain ext4
> > ext4 /boot, LVMthinp+XFS no alternate appears
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *GRUB2 has no problem directly booting from XFS for some time now, but
> > probably we'd continue to put /boot on ext4 in all plain partition
> > configurations.
> >
> > Also this guided UI permits the selection of multiple devices. So the WG's
> > might consider how/when to discuss that, if it's a good idea. Today if 2+
> > devices are chosen, the LVM default creates linear LV's that span the
> > multiple disk VG. For btrfs, the chosen devices are put in a raid0. There
> > is no UI to indicate this, it just happens.
> >
>
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fedora-meeting-1.2014-02-27-15.00.log.html
>
> OK super, pretty much all Server WG questions are answered. That was easy.
> Summary is they are going to go with XFS on LVM. LVM vs LVM thinp is to be
> determined. And they only want this one option for the guided path (i.e.
> sounds like Partition Scheme pop-up goes away).
>
> For Workstation WG it can be the same thing too. Or optionally pick an
> alternate: plain partition (probably ext4), or Btrfs.
>
>
> Chris Murphy
My question may seem dumb, but will the systems still function without
the net? Cloud services are wonderful in their promise, but my
experience with availability of the net lead me to be suspicious, and
the speed of the net is still abysmal for many of the types of things I
do, such as DSP, AI programming, embedded device support, in depth
interactive analysis of some kinds of digital data, or interactive
conversion of programs between programming languages and/or platforms.
I do know that the net offers powerful parallel processing, powerful
language and platform independence for all kinds of big data, and of
course the real-time perusal of the net itself and its contents. But
the cloud type of services also offer the spread of potent platform
independent virus programs, unknown destinations of your data and
programs, along with the risks associated with cross border support of
some kinds of programs and data.
There can also be legal repercussions in some cases should some treaty,
law or other rule be broken in the containment, transmission and
operation of such programs.
So how is that to be handled?
Regards,
Les H
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
