On Mon, 2020-07-06 at 18:48 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:24:37 -0400, you wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:54:02AM +0000, Zbigniew J?drzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > Making btrfs opt-in for F33 and (assuming the result go well) opt-out for 
> > > F34
> > > could be good option. I know technically it is already opt-in, but it's 
> > > not
> > > very visible or popular. We could make the btrfs option more prominent and
> > > ask people to pick it if they are ready to handle potential fallout.
> > 
> > I'm leaning towards recommending this as well. I feel like we don't have
> > good data to make a decision on -- the work that Red Hat did previously when
> > making a decision was 1) years ago and 2) server-focused, and the Facebook
> > production usage is encouraging but also not the same use case. I'm
> > particularly concerned about metadata corruption fragility as noted in the
> > Usenix paper. (It'd be nice if we could do something about that!)
> So if one has a spare partition to play with btrfs, is there an easy
> way to install a second copy of Fedora without having the /boot/efi/
> entries overwrite the existing Fedora installation?  Or fix it to have
> 2 separate entries after the fact?

If you mean the EFI boot manager entry, just renaming the existing one
something other than "Fedora" ought to do the trick, I think. So far as
/boot/efi goes...well, you have two choices. You can have the two
installs share one, or have two separate ones. I *think* both options
at least in theory ought to work, I'm not sure if anyone's tested...
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to