Re: fuse2 vs fuse3

Hi, On 28/04/2021 16:27, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 11:27 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Is there any preference for fuse3 over fuse2? I moved a package over to fuse3 yesterday[1]. The API[2] seems a bit cleaner, but it's no big deal. However it's not really feasible to

Re: Meaning of Size Directories

Hi, On 16/03/2021 16:51, John Reiser wrote: On 3/16/21, David Howells wrote: John Reiser wrote: See the manual page "man 2 getdents". Um, which bit?  I don't see anything obvious to that end. On that manual page: = The system call getdents() reads several linux_dirent structures

Re: booting successfully with read-only file system

Hi, On 03/07/2020 14:18, Colin Walters wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: It would be great if we could fairly reliably boot with a read-only root file system, Eh, just mount a tmpfs for /var, and an overlayfs for /etc (backed by a tmpfs). That's

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

Hi, On 01/07/2020 12:09, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: Hi, On 01/07/2020 07:54, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 03:15:23PM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote: So yes, I think an explicit "let'

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

Hi, On 01/07/2020 07:54, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 03:15:23PM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote: So yes, I think an explicit "let's all test btrfs (as anaconda configures it) before we make it default" period is warranted. Perhaps one can argue that Fedora has

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

Hi, On 29/06/2020 19:54, Igor Raits wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 12:26 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 09:59:52AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: We cannot include ZFS in Fedora for legal reasons. Additionally, ZFS is not

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

Hi, On 30/06/2020 13:58, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:42 AM Steven Whitehouse wrote: Hi, On 29/06/2020 23:57, Markus Larsson wrote: On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 18:51 -0400, James Cassell wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Markus S. wrote: Why not Stratis? Stratis cannot

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

Hi, On 29/06/2020 23:57, Markus Larsson wrote: On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 18:51 -0400, James Cassell wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Markus S. wrote: Why not Stratis? Stratis cannot be used to build the root filesystem. (It's been answered elsewhere in the thread.) Are we sure?

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

Hi, On 27/06/2020 11:00, Florian Weimer wrote: * Josef Bacik: As for your ENOSPC issue, I've made improvements on that area. I see this in production as well, I have monitoring in place to deal with the machine before it gets to this point. That being said if you run the box out of metadata

Re: I would like to propose that we turn on XFS Reflink in Fedora 29 by default

Hi, On 28/04/18 14:55, Peter Robinson wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Walsh wrote: We are adding some features to container projects for User Namespace support that can take advantage of XFS Reflink. I have talked to some of the XFS Reflink kernel

Re: Fedora27: NFS v4 terrible write performance, is async working

Hi, On 28/01/18 07:48, Terry Barnaby wrote: When doing a tar -xzf ... of a big source tar on an NFSv4 file system the time taken is huge. I am seeing an overall data rate of about 1 MByte per second across the network interface. If I copy a single large file I see a network data rate of

Re: Deprecating old networking protocols

Hi, On 14/11/17 19:20, Laura Abbott wrote: The kernel has seen an uptick in testing from fuzzers lately. This has been great for the kernel as its exposed a number of bugs. See https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2017/05/exploiting-linux-kernel-via-packet.html as an example. Part of this

Re: BTRFS dropped by RedHat

On 04/08/17 16:23, Fernando Nasser wrote: On 2017-08-04 11:12 AM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: The release notes for RHEL 7.4 announce that RedHat gave up on btrfs: Is it only RHEL? Yes, it is only RHEL. It does not have any effect on Fedora, that is entirely independent, Steve.

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

Hi, On 03/10/14 07:42, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote: El 2014-10-03 05:31, Andre Robatino escribió: openSUSE 13.2, scheduled for release in November, will have btrfs as the default filesystem. What are the chances that F22 will follow suit, assuming openSUSE has no major problems with it?

Re: kernel packaging split up landing in Rawhide

Hi, On 29/04/14 22:41, Josh Boyer wrote: Hi All, As part of the F21 Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud Feature[1], I've committed and pushed the kernel packaging split up into kernel-core and kernel-drivers subpackages. For those of you running rawhide, this really shouldn't be a major impact

Re: Network configuration future

Hi, I wonder if one way to deal with the network configuration issue is to try and help different configuration systems work with each other, rather than to try and create one system which does everything. Last time I looked into this there were various things which could be done to allow

kernel-modules-extra and GFS2

Hi, I've had some reports recently that appeared to suggest that in F17, GFS2 was no longer being supported by the kernel. Having investigated this, it appears that the root cause is that the gfs2.ko module has been moved to a package called kernel-modules-extra (although the kernel RPM still

Re: kernel-modules-extra and GFS2

Hi, On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 10:55 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:52:19AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: Hi, I've had some reports recently that appeared to suggest that in F17, GFS2 was no longer being supported by the kernel. Having investigated

Re: kernel-modules-extra and GFS2

Hi, On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 07:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Steven Whitehouse swhit...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 10:55 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:52:19AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: Hi, I've

Re: kernel-modules-extra and GFS2

Hi, I've opened bug #811547 for this issue, Steve. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: systemd and mounting filesystems

Hi, On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 09:18 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 10/05/2011 08:55 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote: Ok, excellent, so there is really just one issue to try and resolve in that case I think, which is the ordering of mounts vs. gfs_controld start, Hum... Could

Re: systemd and mounting filesystems

Hi, On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 00:01 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Tue, 04.10.11 14:39, Steven Whitehouse (swhit...@redhat.com) wrote: Hi, Heya, I'm looking for some info on systemd and how filesystems are mounted in Fedora. I've started looking into converting the gfs2-utils

systemd and mounting filesystems

Hi, I'm looking for some info on systemd and how filesystems are mounted in Fedora. I've started looking into converting the gfs2-utils package to the new init system and run into things which are not documented (so far as I can tell). Currently there are two init scripts in gfs2-utils, one is

Re: systemd and mounting filesystems

Hi, On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 14:54 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: On 10/04/2011 02:39 PM, Steven Whitehouse wrote: Hi, I'm looking for some info on systemd and how filesystems are mounted in Fedora. I've started looking into converting the gfs2-utils package to the new init system and run

debugfs query

Hi, Currently Fedora doesn't automatically mount debugfs at boot time. So I thought that it might be worth asking whether this should be the case? One alternative would be to only mount it when a package was installed that requires debugfs. The issue there is that there are potentially, at