On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 20:11 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
There are advantages for server using XFS, even for the smaller
percent (?) who may end up using the default installation path.
There's no negative I think of for Workstation using XFS. So I'd say
make them both XFS.
The xfs negative I can see is the resizing thing. That's about it,
really. (For anyone who's not aware: you can't shrink xfs partitions,
currently. That means that people won't be able to shrink their Fedora
install to install something else alongside it later).
I don't think we'll have much to worry about in terms of everything
exploding when we switch. xfs is a well known quantity that anaconda's
supported for years, that is being used for RHEL 7, that we're pretty
comfortable with. I really do expect that, if both server and desktop
are happy with it, we could just flip the switch in anaconda next week
and everything would keep working.
> 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.
> Right now we seem to be sleepwalking into a situation where server and
> desktop diverge but no-one particularly *wants* that, which seems a bit
Yeah. I pretty much see it as an LVM question. If not LVM, sure ext4
meets the requirements and it's a very slightly simpler layout because
we'd need an ext4 boot anyway. If yes to LVM, just do what Server is
doing. Workstation isn't hurt by it.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net