On 05/02/2018 11:35 AM, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
>> And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being able to shrink.
>
> But note that even ext4 can't shrink while being mounted.
I consider that an annoying limitation of ext4, and I would not expect
a replacement files
Late and off-topic by now, but in retrospect my response is closer to
stupid than the intended hyperbolic+funny.
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:07 AM, Martin Kolman wrote:
>> What about putting it on top of a thin-LV then ? With over provisioning
On 4/29/18 11:45 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Assuming that the plan is to leave it enabled in F-29 on branching and
>> have it ship enabled in F-29 I agree, if the intention is to leave it
>> enabled in rawhide and disable it on branching then the Change
>> Proposal mechanism isn't the way to ensure
On 2 May 2018 at 18:49, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/2/18 7:15 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:36 AM Marius Vollmer
>>> wrote:
>>>
Neal Gompa writes:
>>>
> And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being abl
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/2/18 7:15 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:36 AM Marius Vollmer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neal Gompa writes:
>>
And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being able to shrink.
>>
>>> But note that even ext4 can't shri
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/2/18 7:15 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:36 AM Marius Vollmer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neal Gompa writes:
>>
And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being able to shrink.
>>
>>> But note that even ext4 can't shri
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:07 AM, Martin Kolman wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 18:16 +, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM Jason L Tibbitts III
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > "CW" == Colin Walters writes:
>> > CW> I'd say it makes sense to revisit the default here globally in
>>
On 05/02/2018 08:56 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Given that it is exception activity, dump/mks/restore is also a less
convenient but more robust solution to the problem.
I'm sitting in a hotel room with a laptop. What do I backup *to*?
If you're putting your years-old root or home filesystem at r
Le 2018-05-02 15:25, Eric Sandeen a écrit :
On 5/2/18 7:15 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
But it can shrink when it's not. This is incredibly important for
being
able to deal with resizing both / and /home at the same time, or even
trying to make space for multi-booting (typically with Windows but
so
On 5/2/18 8:42 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 08:25 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> I've always seen the need for shrink as an indicator that someone had
>> poor planning along the way, or insufficient tools for provisioning to
>> start with. Sure, there are exceptions, but in general who needs
On 05/02/2018 08:25 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
I've always seen the need for shrink as an indicator that someone had
poor planning along the way, or insufficient tools for provisioning to
start with. Sure, there are exceptions, but in general who needs shrink
on a regular basis?
The point isn't s
On 5/2/18 7:15 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:36 AM Marius Vollmer
> wrote:
>
>> Neal Gompa writes:
>
>>> And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being able to shrink.
>
>> But note that even ext4 can't shrink while being mounted.
>
> But it can shrink when it's not
On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 18:16 +, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM Jason L Tibbitts III
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "CW" == Colin Walters writes:
> > CW> I'd say it makes sense to revisit the default here globally in
> > CW> Anaconda.
> > Maybe. Have the issues which made XFS l
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:36 AM Marius Vollmer
wrote:
> Neal Gompa writes:
> > And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being able to shrink.
> But note that even ext4 can't shrink while being mounted.
But it can shrink when it's not. This is incredibly important for being
able to deal
Neal Gompa writes:
> And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being able to shrink.
But note that even ext4 can't shrink while being mounted.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@li
On 4/30/18 1:16 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM Jason L Tibbitts III
> wrote:
>
>>> "CW" == Colin Walters writes:
>
>> CW> I'd say it makes sense to revisit the default here globally in
>> CW> Anaconda.
>
>> Maybe. Have the issues which made XFS less suitable for u
On 04/30/2018 02:16 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> And there's still the fun restriction of XFS not being able to shrink. It's
> not particularly important in the server case, but in the desktop/laptop
> case, it happens enough in my experience that I'm not sure I'd want a
> default filesystem that
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> > "CW" == Colin Walters writes:
> CW> I'd say it makes sense to revisit the default here globally in
> CW> Anaconda.
> Maybe. Have the issues which made XFS less suitable for use on laptops
> been resolved? The primary one I r
> "CW" == Colin Walters writes:
CW> I'd say it makes sense to revisit the default here globally in
CW> Anaconda.
Maybe. Have the issues which made XFS less suitable for use on laptops
been resolved? The primary one I recall was that each mounted
filesystem would have a corresponding kernel
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018, at 6:47 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> XFS is the default filesystem on Fedora Server Edition,
And we use Server partitioning now for Atomic Host. But for the
vast majority of times people say "Fedora" they're talking about
as a desktop. And Workstation uses the Anacond
On 4/29/18 6:23 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
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 hav
>> > 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
>> >>>
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:37 PM Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
>
> On 4/28/18 9:21 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > 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 Names
On 4/28/18 9:21 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> 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
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 engineers in Red Hat and the
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 engineers in Red Hat and they have informed me that they
> believe it is
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 engineers in Red Hat and they have informed me
that they believe it is ready to be turned on by default.
I am not sure who in Re
27 matches
Mail list logo
