-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/2014 11:42 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:14 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:59:00PM +0000, Colin Walters wrote:
>>> Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing,
>>> even if that thing isn't ready. I really don't want to wade
>>> through tons of bug reports for btrfs just because it has a
>>> lot of hype.
>> Also, right now cloud is plain old ext4. Let's see if we can
>> ship *all* of the filesystems! It'll be fun!
>
> Cloud could switch to XFS along with server. The main problem is
> that it'd make us revisit booting -- either 1) some work into
> lightening up grub2, 2) testing and possibly enhancing syslinux's
> xfs support, or 3) a separate /boot with a different filesystem.
> I don't really love any of those options.
I'm always dubious of 'there shall be only one' decrees - be it
installers or desktop environments or file systems.
I have no problems (personally) about allowing the different products
to select different default filesystems. The reason people choose
different filesystems is to serve different workloads, so I think this
is just an extension of that.
Also, as has already been pointed out: there are Fedora systems
out there using ext4, xfs, btrfs and probably a few other file
systems today. If we now suddenly change track and consider btrfs
not 'safe enough', wasn't it pretty irresponsible of us to let
people use it for their installations ?
I think we're saying "it's not stable enough for the *default*".
That's a different statement from "it's not stable enough for use".
For the workstation, I think the options are
- switch to btrfs soon to give it the exposure it needs to get
ready (while being careful to limit the supported features, as suse
does)
I'm slightly in favor of this for the Workstation, personally. Without
wide adoption, btrfs will never get any better.
- stick with ext4 until we have some user-visible features (time
slider...) that make a switch to btrfs very attractive
Certainly an acceptable answer as well. I don't really see any
compelling arguments for XFS in this workload.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlMOJ+kACgkQeiVVYja6o6MkFQCgjEbsK+RJgXR0u27OgbCYDzIb
4SQAn2H3Yl3+9ZGsgja/e/wNOu5eVgK5
=fv9M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----