Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 05:44:14PM -0600, Jon wrote: > On the rel-eng side we are not using anaconda to compose the ARM > images because we cannot put Anaconda into koji tasks, so instead we > use appliance-tools for ARM images. There should be a new koji release _real soon now_ which will include

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 3/4/14, 3:43 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 03/04/2014 11:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: >> On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection >>> to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Jon wrote: >> >> We no longer release Fedora ARM rootfs tarballs, too hard to educate >> people to do the right thing with ACL's, xattrs, selinux, etc... >> Anyhow, it's actually a great way to ship a Fedora rootf

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/04/2014 11:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to wind up with server and desktop having defaults t

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski said: >> I am pretty sure that ext4 is a built-in module in Fedora kernels, >> as well as in the boot environment; making XFS the default will >> require also building it in, pretty much forever, while we sti

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski said: > I understand that by now XFS got so much exercise that its > robustness is unimpeachable. As to the size, I see that while the > latest XFS kernel module is one of the larger kernel modules around, > it probably is no longer significant on today's multi

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > I am pretty sure that ext4 is a built-in module in Fedora kernels, as well > as in the boot environment; making XFS the default will require also > building it in, pretty much forever, while we still need extXX, and whatever > comes next (

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to wind up with server and desktop having defaults that are very similar but slightly different, for

Re: OpenQA [was Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical] Specification

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 07:51 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 06:55:44PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I just want to make sure anyone who wants to do this goes in with an > > accurate knowledge of the work that's likely to be involved. I also want > > to explain that the f

OpenQA [was Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical] Specification

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 06:55:44PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I just want to make sure anyone who wants to do this goes in with an > accurate knowledge of the work that's likely to be involved. I also want > to explain that the folks we have in QA already who are interested in > working on too

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:05:22PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 08:59 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > Now, if you want to talk about having some sort of click-through for > > "I want to try out some experimental options without going all the way > > to customizing my

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/02/2014 10:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 2, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Nathanael Noblet wrote: On 03/01/2014 04:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: The servers were rented with a Fedora produced default/automatic/guided partitioning layout? If not, your example is out of scope. We are only talking

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 3/3/14, 7:34 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Eric Sandeen said: >> The shrink/grow thing was clever, but also a bit abusive from a filesystem >> design point of view. > > How does it compare to the suggested alternative, LVM thin provisioning? > How well does thinp handle fragmentat

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 08:59 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Now, if you want to talk about having some sort of click-through for > "I want to try out some experimental options without going all the way > to customizing my layout manually", that (to me) needs to be a > different, third path. But

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Jon wrote: > > We no longer release Fedora ARM rootfs tarballs, too hard to educate > people to do the right thing with ACL's, xattrs, selinux, etc... > Anyhow, it's actually a great way to ship a Fedora rootfs... just > shrink the filesystem down to the smallest size

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 18:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 14:27 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:03:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > What I came up with is this gem: > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_storag

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 14:27 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:03:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > What I came up with is this gem: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_storage_matrix > [...] > > Some of this is susceptible to automation, but

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Once upon a time, Eric Sandeen said: > The shrink/grow thing was clever, but also a bit abusive from a filesystem > design point of view. How does it compare to the suggested alternative, LVM thin provisioning? How well does thinp handle fragmentation; is there a "defrag" for thinp available (or

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 3/3/14, 5:57 PM, Jon wrote: > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote: >> >>> The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've >>> seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why >>> would anyone ever

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote: > >> The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've >> seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why >> would anyone ever want to shrink a volume? > > In the co

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 11:29 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 3/3/14, 3:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote: I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users have the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without to

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 04:29 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/3/14, 3:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> >> >>> I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - >>> let users have the GUI pre

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 3/3/14, 3:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > >> I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users >> have >> the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without >> totally >> hiding other opti

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 11:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote: I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users have the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without totally hiding other options. You and Jose

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote: > I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users > have > the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without > totally > hiding other options. You and Josef are sending mixed messages here: "

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>> On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > On

Fwd: Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

> (For clarification, the above is speaking about the automatic partitioning > code path, not custom partitioning.  Custom will likely always involve more > knobs and controls for users, and many filesystem types.  But that's ok, > custom is for those users.) > I am fine with hav

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 3, 2014, at 6:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > To something like: > * XFS-LVM (Recommended) > * XFS > * EXT4-LVM > * EXT4 > * BTRFS (Experimental) I realize this is not a serious recommendation. However, please no file system Smögåsbord in the guided option. The ice cream truck offe

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 04:40 PM, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- H

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher > >> wrote: > >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > >>> > >>> On 03/

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher >> wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrot

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 09:06 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>> On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wr

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: So if you were asking me "Are we removing btrfs from t

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> So if you were asking me "Are we removing btrfs from the install >>> options completely?

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> So if you were asking me "Are we removing btrfs from the install >> options completely?", the answer is a resounding "NO". However, >> if you're asking "A

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 08:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" mailto:sgall...@redhat.com>> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 08:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" > wrote: >> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 1,

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma: > >>> On 27.02.2014 01:33, Jose

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > >> >> >> Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma: >>> On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not r

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/01/2014 04:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote: > >> The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. >> I've seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of >> (paraphrased): why would anyone ev

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 2 March 2014 14:56, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 03/02/2014 01:17 PM, Ian Malone wrote: >>> >>> Can we get some definition of "legacy" here? kernel/nfs-utils versions? >>> > >> >> I'd have to check what I can share. If it helps: not current RHEL or >> recent Fedora, until recently some that were ov

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 2, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Nathanael Noblet wrote: > On 03/01/2014 04:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> The servers were rented with a Fedora produced default/automatic/guided >> partitioning layout? If not, your example is out of scope. We are only >> talking about this context specifically, not

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/01/2014 04:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: The servers were rented with a Fedora produced default/automatic/guided partitioning layout? If not, your example is out of scope. We are only talking about this context specifically, not arbitrary examples for shrinking a file system. The Fedora aut

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Am 02.03.2014 19:38, schrieb Chris Murphy: > Is it reasonable to expose untested features in the UI? RAID 1 and RAID 10 > are probably > reasonably well tested because they meet the requirements (and then some) for > many use > cases. We have test cases for them. There are no RAID 4 or RAID 6 t

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 2, 2014, at 6:17 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > Chris Murphy writes: > >>> Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6? > >> It's pathological. > > Sick? Non-functional? Unlucky? Compulsive as in doing something merely because it can be done, but also not well-behaved, and counter

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/27/2014 02:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/27/2014 12:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Josef Bacik mailto:jo...@toxicpanda.com>> wrote: Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora y

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/02/2014 01:17 PM, Ian Malone wrote: Can we get some definition of "legacy" here? kernel/nfs-utils versions? > I'd have to check what I can share. If it helps: not current RHEL or recent Fedora, until recently some that were over five years old. Also this comment in the XFS FAQ: "Beware th

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/01/2014 10:19 PM, Jon wrote: The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why would anyone ever want to shrink a volume? If you use a dm-thin target with a shared storage pool (even if the file system i

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/01/2014 08:51 AM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: >There are good reasons to use XFS by default for Server. Are they listed somewhere? XFS has many advantages: * best performance for most workloads (especially with high speed storage and larger number of core

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 07:56 AM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? My point is we should choose the best solution, even if it takes a little more work to get it up and running. I want to know what it will take to make sure btrfs is good to go as default

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 06:20 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Chris Murphy wrote: by default we put ext4 on LVM The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently. It can be done, the convert tool should work, and Btrfs should work

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:03:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > What I came up with is this gem: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_storage_matrix [...] > Some of this is susceptible to automation, but some is not, in the sense > that it involves the UI, and automated UI tes

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Chris Murphy writes: > > Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6? > It's pathological. Sick? Non-functional? Unlucky? > There are too many simpler, faster, more resilient options > considering rootfs at most isn't bigger than the average SSD: Two or > three SSDs + n-way mirroring. RAID 10

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 1 March 2014 21:37, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote: >> On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce wrote: >>> On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote: On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Mur

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Am 02.03.2014 02:11, schrieb Chris Murphy: > On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy: >>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy: > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murp

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy: >> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >>> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy: On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mar 1, 201

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy: > On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy: >>> >>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy: >> >> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Nathanael Noblet wrote: > On 03/01/2014 02:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote: >> >>> The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've >>> seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why >>> woul

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy: > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> >> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom parti

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning >>> that quite frankly don't make sense like r

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma: >> On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote: >> >>> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora >>> yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks, >>> >> This is actually

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning >> that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or >> raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma: > On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora >> yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks, >> > This is actually a good news. > Thanks. > > Now all we need is fair support in t

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote: > Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora > yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks, > > Josef This is actually a good news. Thanks. Now all we need is fair support in the installer. BTRFS as alternative scheme:

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

In a side note, there have been *some* attempts at adding shrink compatability to xfs, but none of them seem to developed or even complete. Shrinking in my experience is extremely important. Having unexpected growth in the / partition with no ability to make room for it can be a major issue as thi

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 27.02.2014 22:06, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Or, as an alternative, XFS support could be added to u-boot and/or >> syslinux. Never eliminate the possibility of actually writing code to >> fix problems. All it takes is someone willing

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

> >> People do shrink volumes, and this lack of flexibility is an important >> consideration I feel was ignored in the Server WG decision. > > What is the use case for volume shrinking in a server context? Dual boot is a > total edge case for servers. I shrink ext4 filesystems on servers pretty f

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/01/2014 02:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote: The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why would anyone ever want to shrink a volume? In the context of server, and de

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote: > On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce wrote: >> On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote: >>> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> As you say they are 'plain' filesys

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote: >> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not >> sending my small

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote: > The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've > seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why > would anyone ever want to shrink a volume? In the context of server, and default installs, why is a valid question.

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning > that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or > raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not raid 4 or raid 6. There are other Okay, I'll bite. Why

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why would anyone ever want to shrink a volume? People do shrink volumes, and this lack of flexibility is an important consideration I feel was ignored in the Server WG

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mar 1, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > As far as I know inode64 is not really a problem on NFS anymore, which > is why I did not raise this as an issue at all (I use NFS and I have a > 6TB XFS filesystem with inode64). What I'm not certain of, is if the fix was entirely on the server

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote: > On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole back

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Am 01.03.2014 16:42, schrieb Orion Poplawski: > On 03/01/2014 05:04 AM, Ian Malone wrote: >> >> As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not >> sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's >> that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started p

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/01/2014 05:04 AM, Ian Malone wrote: > > As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not > sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's > that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started putting > new filesystems onto ext4 and in the past mo

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV >> wrote: >> >> > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it. >> > >> > What filesystems are we considering?

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: > There are good reasons to use XFS by default for Server. Are they listed somewhere? -- Chris Adams -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Can you elaborate on how that's eases the test matrix? > > As I said in a conversation with Stephen yesterday, I don't think it's > the case that a common layout in partitions/fs is actually reducing > the test load. From a component standpoin

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on LVM. > > As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular > objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it se

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 14:31 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Chris Murphy > > wrote: > >> > >> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fedora-meeting-1.2014-02-27-15.00.log.html > >> > >> OK

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said: >> > Basically, what I'm saying is that if Desktop would be OK with using >> > xfs-on-LVM as default with all choices demoted to custom partitioning >> > (no dropdown), as Server has currently ag

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said: > >> > Directed more broadly at all three products: > >> > > >> > Formal p

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said: > > Basically, what I'm saying is that if Desktop would be OK with using > > xfs-on-LVM as default with all choices demoted to custom partitioning > > (no dropdown), as Server has currently agreed on, that'd be great. Or if > > we could otherwise achiev

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV >> wrote: >> >> > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it. >> > >> > What filesystems are we conside

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said: >> > Directed more broadly at all three products: >> > >> > Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use ext4 >>

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV > wrote: > > > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it. > > > > What filesystems are we considering? > > It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said: > > 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 "g

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it. > > What filesystems are we considering? It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on LVM. There's 92 messages in this thread, and they're in the archives,

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 01:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 10:56 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? It was easy to miss if you don't know the name Josef Bacik, but he's one of the upstream Btrfs maintainers. He said here in this thr

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 10:56 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: >> > Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? It was easy to miss if you don't know the name Josef Bacik, but he's one of the upstream Btrfs maintainers. He said here in this thread yesterday that it's not ready as a d

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 12:57 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: All I mean is, you can't do an ext4->Btrfs conversion and get the Btrfs preset the installer offers. You get something really different that not many people will likely have. So if you're the audience who wants a recommended layout by using instal

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:53 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > > On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> In the context of the default ext4+LVM layout the conversion still means >> separate /boot, /, and /home file systems. A major benefit of the Btrfs >> layout is these are subvol

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 12:41 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 2/27/14, 10:53 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Chris Murphy wrote: by default we put ext4 on LVM The tool works in this use-case unless so

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 2/27/14, 10:53 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > > On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> >>> Chris Murphy wrote: by default we put ext4 on LVM >>> The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recentl

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Chris Murphy wrote: by default we put ext4 on LVM The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently. It can be done, the convert tool should work, and Btrfs should wor

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Chris Murphy wrote: >> by default we put ext4 on LVM > > The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently. It can be done, the convert tool should work, and Btrfs should work on any device mapper instance. Howev

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:03:06 -0500 Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Dennis Gilmore > wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:01:47 -0500 > > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > >> On T

  1   2   >