On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:02 PM, Orion Poplawski <or...@cora.nwra.com> wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 12:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Eric Sandeen <sand...@sandeen.net> wrote: >> >>> On 2/26/14, 11:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Fedora is considering XFS as their default file system. They support >>>> three primary architectures: x86_64, i686, and armv7hl. Do XFS devs >>>> have any reservations about XFS as a default file system on either >>>> i686, or arm? >>> >>> As Dave said, we rely on others to do ARM testing for the most part, >>> though I've certainly jumped in and debugged some issues from time >>> to time. >>> >>> It'd be super if Fedora could run the xfstests test suite on arm >>> as part of QE. I'd be more than happy to help get that started >>> if people are interested. >> >> I don't know that Fedora QA has the resources to do this, but I'll cc the >> Fedora test@ (QA) arm@ lists. If these are highly automatable tests it might >> be possible, if they have the hardware. More likely I think it's that we >> need some ARM community folks to look at splitting up some of this work. >> >> I'm not sure yet what concerns the ARM group might have with XFS either as >> this hasn't been decided, but the Fedora Server product working group is >> slightly leaning toward XFS by default. Performance and CPU hit wise on >> x86_64, XFS seems to match up well with ext4 and maybe even a bit better >> ratio of throughput/CPUtime for booting workload (systemd is parallel!) so >> if were the same on ARM XFS could work out slightly better for them. >> >> >> Chris Murphy >> > > I'm sure many people have much better info on this - but back in the > day, running XFS on LVM (on md?) on i686 was not a good idea due to > issues running out of stack space. I don't know if this has changed in > any way, or if arm is better in this regard. But that would be my > concern. I think RHEL6 doesn't support xfs on i686, and RHEL7 has > dropped i686 completely it seems. This is XFS upstream response to the question I asked about i686 concerns, and they do test it and support it, although there is a limit to 16TB file systems (not an XFS limitation per se, as you'll read). But then such large file systems on 32-bit kernels is also not considered a good idea anyway even if it were ext4 (which by the way has the same 16TB limit.) http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-02/msg00927.html ARM is valid, but the ARM folks say their installation is typically kickstart. But I even if that's their primary install method (?) I wouldn't want the secondary GUI method to blow up on them just because of the default file system. So yes we kinda need to know through some testing. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
