Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Fedora and LVMFedora and LVMPosted Nov 1, 2012 20:55 UTC (Thu) by johannbg (subscriber, #65743)Parent article: Fedora and LVM
And this is just plain wrong
"The Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCO) took up this issue and brought it to a vote on October 30. Full consensus was not to be found there either, but, in the end, FESCO voted in favor of the change back to the pre-F18 default. So, unless something gets derailed somewhere, the Fedora 18 will, like its predecessors, install and use LVM by default."
I brought it to their attentions since this was brought up *after*'we were in freeze and we in QA had been doing all our testing and decisions based on ext4 being the default filesystem.
The reason "Full consensus was not to be found" was because all the fesco members were unable to respond to that ticket in the time it was needed so once the majority was achieved we moved on.
If the newUI would have continued to offer users to hash or unhash lvm when the default partitioning was chosen ( as it did in F17 ) this discussion would never have taken place in the first place .
Having lvm as an default also destroys the ability for users to boot directly from an ext4 partition without initramfs which was entirely left out from "lvm as an default" discussion...
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 2, 2012 0:09 UTC (Fri) by Tobu (subscriber, #24111) [Link] Having lvm as an default also destroys the ability for users to boot directly from an ext4 partition without initramfs which was entirely left out from "lvm as an default" discussion... Why would this be supported? An initramfs provides a ton of flexibility and the cost is about zero, it's just a second file next to /vmlinuz.
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 2, 2012 10:03 UTC (Fri) by johannbg (subscriber, #65743) [Link]
I think it's better you explain to me why this should not be supported?
Like majority of laptop/desktop users I have absolutely no need for the "advanced requirements" that initramfs brings so why would I want to use it? Why would I want to have and use additional bug layer on my system for no benefits to me at all?
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 2, 2012 15:15 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I doubt that's actually true, there are many different requirements for desktop/laptop users that work best with or require initramfs setup at boot time. The only way to not need it is to greatly reduce the capability of the system or increase the fragility of the boot process. If you want encrypted block devices, software RAID, dependency ordering for hardware initialization, etc. then it's best to do that from an initramfs. Maybe you don't want these things but other people do so it has to be supported by default.
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 2, 2012 16:32 UTC (Fri) by johannbg (subscriber, #65743) [Link]
Please enlighten me how this greatly reduce the capability of the system or increase the fragility of the boot process ( given that I have not been bit by several bugs we have encounter with the initramfs ) or how I cant use encrypted block devices ( like I'm currently doing ).
I dont need or want lvm I dont use hw or sw raid and if I need additional storage I buy external disks or rather use my spideroak account on the cloud to share across all my devices and where I dont have to worry about the disk failing and I could loose my data or I simply use my own local nas at home.
I'm not saying that users should not be able to setup and use initramfs but for laptop/desktop use cases I dont see the argument why they need it
I certainly dont and I prefer faster and more reliable bootup.
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 2, 2012 17:35 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It doesn't even need to be a second file. You can link it into the kernel, and then you don't need to worry about *ever* ending up with a kernel without the initramfs, or vice versa, or version skew between them.
|
|||||||||||||