vgoyal added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` > > vgoyal > IIUC, you are saying that use a thin LV for rootfs to work around xfs shrink > issue? People have tried that in the past and there have been talks about > that many a times. There are still issues with xfs on top of thin lv and how > no space situation is handled etc. Bottom line, we are not there yet. > > You mean thin pool exhaustion? Right now the atomic host default uses the > docker devicemapper driver which is XFS on a dm-thin pool. So I don't > understand why one is OK and the other isn't.
There are outstanding bugs and issues against that. Error handling was not graceful and there were instances of container hanging if thin pool was full and only solution was to reboot the system. So it is not fine as such. Just that we don't seem to have better options. People have been talking about much closer interaction between xfs and thin pool for quite some time. Anaconda developers have tried setting thin pool out of box in the past and finally they backed it out later due to various issues. In short, putting rootfs on thin lv increases complexity of default setup and difficult to recover if something is bad. (thin pool full). Lot of people don't like the idea of doing over provisioning for rootfs. They better have peach of mind with pre-allocated rootfs. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/186 _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
