On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 05:44:14PM -0600, Jon wrote:
On the rel-eng side we are not using anaconda to compose the ARM
images because we cannot put Anaconda into koji tasks, so instead we
use appliance-tools for ARM images.
There should be a new koji release _real soon now_ which will include
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:05:22PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 08:59 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, if you want to talk about having some sort of click-through for
I want to try out some experimental options without going all the way
to customizing my layout
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 06:55:44PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I just want to make sure anyone who wants to do this goes in with an
accurate knowledge of the work that's likely to be involved. I also want
to explain that the folks we have in QA already who are interested in
working on tools
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 07:51 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 06:55:44PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I just want to make sure anyone who wants to do this goes in with an
accurate knowledge of the work that's likely to be involved. I also want
to explain that the folks
On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular
objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit
sub-optimal for us to wind up with server and desktop having defaults
that are very similar but slightly different, for
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
I am pretty sure that ext4 is a built-in module in Fedora kernels, as well
as in the boot environment; making XFS the default will require also
building it in, pretty much forever, while we still need extXX, and
Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov said:
I understand that by now XFS got so much exercise that its
robustness is unimpeachable. As to the size, I see that while the
latest XFS kernel module is one of the larger kernel modules around,
it probably is no longer
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov said:
I am pretty sure that ext4 is a built-in module in Fedora kernels,
as well as in the boot environment; making XFS the default will
require also building it
On 03/04/2014 11:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection to
XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to wind
up with server and desktop having defaults
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
We no longer release Fedora ARM rootfs tarballs, too hard to educate
people to do the right thing with ACL's, xattrs, selinux, etc...
Anyhow, it's actually a
On 3/4/14, 3:43 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/04/2014 11:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection
to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to
wind
On 2 March 2014 14:56, Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/02/2014 01:17 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
Can we get some definition of legacy here? kernel/nfs-utils versions?
I'd have to check what I can share. If it helps: not current RHEL or
recent Fedora, until recently some that were
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/2014 04:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing.
I've seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of
(paraphrased): why would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma:
On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is
On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma:
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
mailto:sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar
On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
mailto:sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So if you were asking me Are we removing btrfs from the install
options completely?, the answer is a resounding NO. However,
if you're asking Are we
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So if you were asking me Are we removing btrfs from the install
options
On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So if you were asking me Are we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 09:06 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On
On 03/03/2014 04:40 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP
On Mar 3, 2014, at 6:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
To something like:
* XFS-LVM (Recommended)
* XFS
* EXT4-LVM
* EXT4
* BTRFS (Experimental)
I realize this is not a serious recommendation.
However, please no file system Smögåsbord in the guided option. The ice
, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical
Specification
On 03/03/2014 04:40 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users
have
the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without
totally
hiding other options.
You and Josef are sending mixed messages here: btrfs
On 03/03/2014 11:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users have
the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without totally
hiding other options.
You and
On 3/3/14, 3:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users
have
the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without
totally
hiding other options.
You
On 03/03/2014 11:29 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 3/3/14, 3:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users have
the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
would anyone ever want
On 3/3/14, 5:57 PM, Jon wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of
Once upon a time, Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com said:
The shrink/grow thing was clever, but also a bit abusive from a filesystem
design point of view.
How does it compare to the suggested alternative, LVM thin provisioning?
How well does thinp handle fragmentation; is there a defrag for thinp
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 14:27 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:03:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
What I came up with is this gem:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_storage_matrix
[...]
Some of this is susceptible to automation, but some is
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 18:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 14:27 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:03:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
What I came up with is this gem:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_storage_matrix
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
We no longer release Fedora ARM rootfs tarballs, too hard to educate
people to do the right thing with ACL's, xattrs, selinux, etc...
Anyhow, it's actually a great way to ship a Fedora rootfs... just
shrink the filesystem down to the
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 08:59 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, if you want to talk about having some sort of click-through for
I want to try out some experimental options without going all the way
to customizing my layout manually, that (to me) needs to be a
different, third path. But
On 3/3/14, 7:34 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com said:
The shrink/grow thing was clever, but also a bit abusive from a filesystem
design point of view.
How does it compare to the suggested alternative, LVM thin provisioning?
How well does thinp handle
On 03/02/2014 10:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 2, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca wrote:
On 03/01/2014 04:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
The servers were rented with a Fedora produced default/automatic/guided
partitioning layout? If not, your example is out of scope. We
On 1 March 2014 21:37, Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote:
On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com writes:
Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6?
It's pathological.
Sick? Non-functional? Unlucky?
There are too many simpler, faster, more resilient options
considering rootfs at most isn't bigger than the average SSD: Two or
three SSDs + n-way
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:03:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
What I came up with is this gem:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_storage_matrix
[...]
Some of this is susceptible to automation, but some is not, in the sense
that it involves the UI, and automated UI testing
On 02/28/2014 06:20 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
by default we put ext4 on LVM
The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently.
It can be done, the convert tool should work, and
On 02/28/2014 07:56 AM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote:
Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? My point is we should
choose the best solution, even if it takes a little more work to get it up and
running. I want to know what it will take to make sure btrfs is good to go as
On 03/01/2014 08:51 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Chris Murphyli...@colorremedies.com said:
There are good reasons to use XFS by default for Server.
Are they listed somewhere?
XFS has many advantages:
* best performance for most workloads (especially with high speed storage and
On 03/01/2014 10:19 PM, Jon wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
would anyone ever want to shrink a volume?
If you use a dm-thin target with a shared storage pool (even if the file system
On 03/02/2014 01:17 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
Can we get some definition of legacy here? kernel/nfs-utils versions?
I'd have to check what I can share. If it helps: not current RHEL or
recent Fedora, until recently some that were over five years old. Also
this comment in the XFS FAQ: Beware that
On 02/27/2014 02:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/27/2014 12:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com
mailto:jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be
On Mar 2, 2014, at 6:17 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler f...@redhat.com wrote:
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com writes:
Okay, I'll bite. Why not rootfs on raid6?
It's pathological.
Sick? Non-functional? Unlucky?
Compulsive as in doing something merely because it can be done, but also
Am 02.03.2014 19:38, schrieb Chris Murphy:
Is it reasonable to expose untested features in the UI? RAID 1 and RAID 10
are probably
reasonably well tested because they meet the requirements (and then some) for
many use
cases. We have test cases for them. There are no RAID 4 or RAID 6 test
On 03/01/2014 04:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
The servers were rented with a Fedora produced
default/automatic/guided partitioning layout? If not, your example is
out of scope. We are only talking about this context specifically, not
arbitrary examples for shrinking a file system. The Fedora
On Mar 2, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca wrote:
On 03/01/2014 04:57 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
The servers were rented with a Fedora produced default/automatic/guided
partitioning layout? If not, your example is out of scope. We are only
talking about this context
On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV jwhars...@gmail.com
wrote:
I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it.
What
On 03/01/2014 05:04 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not
sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's
that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started putting
new filesystems onto ext4 and in the past month
Am 01.03.2014 16:42, schrieb Orion Poplawski:
On 03/01/2014 05:04 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not
sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's
that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started putting
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV
jwhars...@gmail.com wrote:
I apologize, I guess I did
On Mar 1, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
As far as I know inode64 is not really a problem on NFS anymore, which
is why I did not raise this as an issue at all (I use NFS and I have a
6TB XFS filesystem with inode64).
What I'm not certain of, is if the fix was entirely
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
would anyone ever want to shrink a volume?
People do shrink volumes, and this lack of flexibility is an important
consideration I feel was ignored in the Server
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
- There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning
that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or
raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not raid 4 or raid 6. There are other
Okay, I'll bite. Why
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
would anyone ever want to shrink a volume?
In the context of server, and default installs, why is a
On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now
On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
As you say
On 03/01/2014 02:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
would anyone ever want to shrink a volume?
In the
People do shrink volumes, and this lack of flexibility is an important
consideration I feel was ignored in the Server WG decision.
What is the use case for volume shrinking in a server context? Dual boot is a
total edge case for servers.
I shrink ext4 filesystems on servers pretty
On 27.02.2014 22:06, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Or, as an alternative, XFS support could be added to u-boot and/or
syslinux. Never eliminate the possibility of actually writing code to
fix problems. All it takes is someone willing to do
In a side note, there have been *some* attempts at adding shrink
compatability to xfs, but none of them seem to developed or even complete.
Shrinking in my experience is extremely important. Having unexpected growth
in the / partition with no ability to make room for it can be a major issue
as
On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora
yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks,
Josef
This is actually a good news.
Thanks.
Now all we need is fair support in the installer.
BTRFS as alternative scheme:
+1
Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma:
On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora
yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks,
This is actually a good news.
Thanks.
Now all we need is fair support in the
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
- There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning
that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or
raid6. OK
On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma:
On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora
yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks,
This is
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
- There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning
that
Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
- There needs to be a mandate to
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca wrote:
On 03/01/2014 02:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28,
Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller
On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy
Am 02.03.2014 02:11, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014,
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
Directed more broadly at all three products:
Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use ext4
for /boot and XFS-on-LVM for all other partitions in the guided
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV jwhars...@gmail.com
wrote:
I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it.
What filesystems are we considering?
It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
Directed more broadly at all three products:
Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV jwhars...@gmail.com
wrote:
I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it.
What
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said:
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. Or if
we could otherwise achieve
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
Directed more broadly at all three products:
Formal
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said:
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
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 14:31 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on LVM.
As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular
objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you elaborate on how that's eases the test matrix?
As I said in a conversation with Stephen yesterday, I don't think it's
the case that a common layout in partitions/fs is actually reducing
the test load. From a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/27/2014 12:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com
mailto:jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default
in Fedora yet. Optional is fine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/27/2014 07:53 AM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
On 27 February 2014 13:43, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
wrote:
Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use
ext4 for /boot and XFS-on-LVM for all other partitions
Fortunately for me, I set it
up on LVM. I went out, bought a new hard drive, inserted it, added it
to the volume group and then ran 'pvmove' to migrate all of the
sectors off of the original drive to the new one.
What did you do with your /boot partition?
-Jacob
--
devel mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/27/2014 08:10 AM, Jacob Yundt wrote:
Fortunately for me, I set it up on LVM. I went out, bought a new
hard drive, inserted it, added it to the volume group and then
ran 'pvmove' to migrate all of the sectors off of the original
drive to the
Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
Directed more broadly at all three products:
Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use ext4
for /boot and XFS-on-LVM for all other partitions in the guided
mode. All is fair game in the custom mode.
Also, for the sake
On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Question for the cloud folks:
I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to
your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstation
groups decide to settle on both using
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to
your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstation
groups decide to settle on both using XFS-on-LVM for the main
partitions, we could
On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Question for the cloud folks:
I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to
your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fedora-meeting-1.2014-02-27-15.00.log.html
OK super, pretty much all Server WG questions are answered. That was easy.
Summary is they are going to go with
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Question for the cloud folks:
I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:01:47 -0500
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to
your use of syslinux instead
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:01:47 -0500
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I realize that XFS is a
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Or, as an alternative, XFS support could be added to u-boot and/or
syslinux. Never eliminate the possibility of actually writing code to
fix problems. All it takes is someone willing to do work ;).
Right, and as I understand it,
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
