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 (paraphrased): why >>> would anyone ever want to shrink a volume? >> In the context of server, and default installs, why is a valid question. >> >> >>> 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. > Recently I had a client who required that some data be on an encrypted > partition. The servers were rented from a datacenter instead of being cloud > based etc. As such you don't have access to the kickstart used to initialize > and install the OS. So we had to shrink the rootfs to make room for a new lvm > partition for the data. I've had to do that a handful of times for various > reasons but the above is the most recent. 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 automatic/guided partition layout is a rootfs of 50GB, and any significant additional space goes to a separate /home. So you're saying you'd shrink a 50GB rootfs for encrypted data, rather than blow away the /home LV, make a new LV, encrypt it, then format it? Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
