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 not well-behaved, and counter-intuitive. There are better ways to achieve the desired results. >> 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 mirroring. RAID 10. Or RAID 1 >> + linear + XFS for deterministic workloads. > > Doesn't the size argument assume that some drives are set aside for > rootfs only? Otherwise, it's reasonable to apply the same raid5/6 > trade-offs to rootfs as to the other data on a shared pool of drives. 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 cases, so should users be permitted to choose untested options? Just because a test case exists, doesn't guarantee that it'll be tested, let alone thoroughly tested or that failure of a test case constitutes a release blocker. It isn't possible for users to make an informed decision the way QA does things now, because the user has no way of knowing the relative testing Manual Partitioning features and outcomes get. And QA has no way of making that more transparent at the moment. This is what's meant by custom partitioning testing being "best effort." 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
