On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 10:23 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 02:53 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The general understanding among Storage People is that we're aiming to
> > go to btrfs by default for F19. Finally. That's one of the arguments
> > against changing the default_now
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:23 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 02:53 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> The general understanding among Storage People is that we're aiming to
>> go to btrfs by default for F19. Finally. That's one of the arguments
>> against changing the default_now_
On 10/26/2012 02:53 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The general understanding among Storage People is that we're aiming to
go to btrfs by default for F19. Finally. That's one of the arguments
against changing the default_now_, for one release (or possibly two),
only to change it again shortly.
Where
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
>
> I am under the impression that we've been testing with/without LVM anyway,
> both scenarios? In any case, it doesn't seem as earthshaking as other
> developments - it's just making the default be what it's been for some time,
> and given t
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 20:14 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Nothing gets 'wedged in' anywhere, there is no code to 'put in' (nor
> > will any of the code that exists get 'removed' even when we default to
> > btrfs, I don't think).
> >
> >
On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Nothing gets 'wedged in' anywhere, there is no code to 'put in' (nor
> will any of the code that exists get 'removed' even when we default to
> btrfs, I don't think).
>
> I already posted the patch: it's two lines. All the code for LVM
> a
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 19:23 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > The default was flipped to raw partitions in early builds of F18
> Anaconda, and that was unfortunate, because it lacked a proper
> discussion and announcement (it was quite a surprise for
On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> The default was flipped to raw partitions in early builds of F18 Anaconda,
> and that was unfortunate, because it lacked a proper discussion and
> announcement (it was quite a surprise for QA). It is still (barely) time to
> flip the default bac
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 19:14 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > Well it wasn't quite drawn up that way. It was more 'oh, hey, RAID has
> > to work at Beta'. So fwraid, HW raid and sw raid are all supposed to
> > work at Beta...but the only one of those that actually relies on custom
> > partitioning is
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 18:22 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 22:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > Hey, folks. So it became clear over the course of
On 10/25/2012 11:24 PM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
I am under the impression that we've been testing with/without LVM
anyway, both scenarios?
The installer has been defaulting to EXT4 up to this point there is no
option to hash or unhash lvm as you could do in the oldUI in the newUI
and custom p
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:24 -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> > First of all this has been known this whole time Ric is not
> > bringing anything new to the table and I nack to this proposal it's
> > to dam late in the release cycle to change this now and if we change
> > this it means we have to s
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 18:22 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 22:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hey, folks. So it became clear over the course of the last few blocker
> > > reviews that the new partitioning crite
On 10/25/2012 01:41 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 10/25/2012 08:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On this topic...Ric Wheeler came up with some fairly good arguments in
favour of keeping the LVM default and proposed it on the anaconda list
this morning (actually I think the post may not have
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 22:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hey, folks. So it became clear over the course of the last few blocker
> > reviews that the new partitioning criteria need a bit of refinement.
> > Here is my proposal for alter
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 00:12 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
>> > Also, this doesn't catch the case of someone who's never used LVM, does
>> > an install of Fedora, notices that it uses LVM, and gets interested
>> > about it and finds out the neat
On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 00:12 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > Also, this doesn't catch the case of someone who's never used LVM, does
> > an install of Fedora, notices that it uses LVM, and gets interested
> > about it and finds out the neat stuff it can do. That's not a terribly
> > unusual use case for
I think it's way quite late in the cycle to talk about merits and drawbacks of
LVM by default. It's quite late for discussing what is a better default. And
that's why we should stick to the long term default, that means LVM.
Personally I didn't like (maybe even hated) LVM when I started to work
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 22:51 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Adam Williamson
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> >
>> >> BTW, on the topic of LVM specifically (whose impor
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 22:51 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, on the topic of LVM specifically (whose importance we still haven't
> >> really established): I did some archive-
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> BTW, on the topic of LVM specifically (whose importance we still haven't
>> really established): I did some archive-diving last week. We first went
>> to LVM-by-default all the
On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 20:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 08:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On this topic...Ric Wheeler came up with some fairly good arguments in
> > favour of keeping the LVM default and proposed it on the anaconda list
> > this morning (actually I th
On 10/25/2012 08:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On this topic...Ric Wheeler came up with some fairly good arguments in
favour of keeping the LVM default and proposed it on the anaconda list
this morning (actually I think the post may not have been approved yet,
but it'll show up soon). Since we're
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 17:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> BTW, on the topic of LVM specifically (whose importance we still haven't
> really established): I did some archive-diving last week. We first went
> to LVM-by-default all the way back in Fedora Core 3. There were two
> reasons for doing t
Adding in btrfs to the convo as it relates to partitioning, raid, lvm and this
bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866101
If anaconda UI offers a redundancy (mirror/raid1) option, then two things
should be true as it relates to the criteria:
a.) the feature should work (i.e
On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> So I'd be interested in general opinions about whether we should go down
> the path of requiring quite a bit of reliability from custom
> partitioning at Beta stage, or whether we should perhaps dial that down
> a bit, and only really requir
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 22:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks. So it became clear over the course of the last few blocker
> reviews that the new partitioning criteria need a bit of refinement.
> Here is my proposal for altering them.
So...aside from the specific discussion of my proposals
> > " The installer must be able to automatically create a functional
> > partition layout using just the empty disk space if you provide it
> > with a validly-formatted disk with sufficient empty space.
> > Pre-existing partitions and data must remain untouched and the
> > bootloader must be corre
On 10/11/2012 06:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 10:29 +, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Please include raid 10.
For Beta? Is it really sufficiently crucial that RAID-10 work in Beta
that we would delay the release until it does?
Final is fine. (tho, if the installer sta
On Oct 11, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> The installer's automatic partitioning must create a functioning partition
> layout using disk free space, for disks with a valid mbr or gpt disklabel.
> Pre-existing partitions, and their contents, must remain unmodified, and the
> bootloade
On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> For Beta? Is it really sufficiently crucial that RAID-10 work in Beta
> that we would delay the release until it does?
No, but using that logic I'd demote RAID 5 too.
Chris Murphy
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsub
On 10/11/2012 01:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think we'd kinda have to establish that line as we went along, and
> maybe refine the criteria further. But do bear in mind this proposal
> affects only Beta as things stand. As noted below, the Final criterion
> would certainly cover such a config
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 07:49 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > current
> > ---
> >
> > * The installer must be able to complete an installation using
> > automatic
> > partitioning to a validly-formatted disk with sufficient empty space,
> > using the empty space and installing a bootloader but lea
On 10/11/2012 01:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> To give a specific proposal here, which I find always focuses minds, we
> could simply adjust the relevant line to read:
>
> Creating and, optionally, encrypting partitions of any specified size
> using all offered device and filesystem types. RAID-
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 10:29 +, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> > Creating and, optionally, encrypting partitions of any specified size
> > using all offered device and filesystem types. RAID-0, RAID-1, RAID-5
> > and LVM must be offered as device types, and ext4 must be offered as a
> > filesystem ty
On Oct 11, 2012, at 4:29 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>
> Please include raid 10.
Almost certainly too late.
It's a good idea though, as it is a discreet type of RAID offered my the md
driver. For most applications it safer, better performing, and more applicable
to regular Joe end user, compar
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:49 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> I don't like "custom partitioning" term.
Technically that screen in anaconda is called "Manual Partitioning". It's just
that to get there you check a box that refers to "let me customize the
partitioning…instead".
> we try to claim that the
On 10/11/2012 06:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 23:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 01:15 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
On 10/11/2012 12:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
We agreed at the blocker review meeting this morning that "most
commonly-used filesystem
On 10/11/2012 06:15 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
Am I interpreting this correctly to mean that a beta can go out without
support for software RAID and/or LVM, as long as they are not offered in
the Anaconda interface? If so, uugh.
Also if the intent isn't to support "every bizarre permutation", what
On 10/11/2012 11:24 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Am I interpreting this correctly to mean that a beta can go out
without
support for software RAID and/or LVM, as long as they are not
offered in
the Anaconda interface? If so, uugh.
Well, that's a complex question. =)
As far as the release criteria wo
> current
> ---
>
> * The installer must be able to complete an installation using
> automatic
> partitioning to a validly-formatted disk with sufficient empty space,
> using the empty space and installing a bootloader but leaving the
> pre-existing partitions and data untouched
>
> * The ins
> > Am I interpreting this correctly to mean that a beta can go out
> > without
> > support for software RAID and/or LVM, as long as they are not
> > offered in
> > the Anaconda interface? If so, uugh.
>
> Well, that's a complex question. =)
>
> As far as the release criteria would be concerned,
On 11/10/12 06:31, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey, folks. So it became clear over the course of the last few blocker
reviews that the new partitioning criteria need a bit of refinement.
Here is my proposal for altering them. The current Beta partitioning
criteria are provided for reference:
The on
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 23:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 01:15 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> > On 10/11/2012 12:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > We agreed at the blocker review meeting this morning that "most
> > > commonly-used filesystem types" was really pretty vague an
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 01:15 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 12:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > We agreed at the blocker review meeting this morning that "most
> > commonly-used filesystem types" was really pretty vague and
> > unsatisfactory. The specific case we were considering was LV
On 10/11/2012 12:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> We agreed at the blocker review meeting this morning that "most
> commonly-used filesystem types" was really pretty vague and
> unsatisfactory. The specific case we were considering was LVM. In the
> end we agreed that, really, at Beta stage, anacond
Hey, folks. So it became clear over the course of the last few blocker
reviews that the new partitioning criteria need a bit of refinement.
Here is my proposal for altering them. The current Beta partitioning
criteria are provided for reference:
current
---
* The installer must be able to com
47 matches
Mail list logo
