Why does Trisquel still default to XFS for home?
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
I was loading up the latest Trisquel 6 test ISO in a virtual machine the other day did a 10 GB image just to play around with and see how the status of it is. There are actually two things I noticed by lettig Trisquel handle my partitioning during that part of the install:
1. The installer makes the / directory WAY too small and when I tested out installing new packages, I kept getting warnings about running out of hard drive space. The HOME directory of course was large and in charge, but I feel like the ratio was really small. Of course when I do a real install, I plan out the partition sizes and leave myself enough room.
2. What is the need to use XFS as the default HOME directory? I know that with Ubuntu 12.04 and above, the EXT4 file system is pretty solid and actually very good for those with SSDs. Another issue is that the XFS partitions cannot be resized which could cause issues in the future. I know my test was in a virtual machine, but even then I couldn't resize the partition to allow some more space. Maybe it is time to switch to EXT4 by default for / and HOME partitions?
I know these two things can be fixed by simply using the manual partitioning tool in the install and knowing what to look for, but I'm concerned about those who just let Trisquel do the work for them. Of course this OS is tailored towards the hardcore of the hardcore who already know how to manually partition their drives well by now.
I guess 16 GB for the root partition (if the device has at least twice this size) would indeed avoid future "disk full" problems.
/home contains files organized with XFS (by default) because this filesystem is known to provide better performances when managing large files. Anyway, I agree that the restriction on shrinking this filesystem is problematic (especially in conjunction with a too small root partition).
I was using tests from http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=reiser4_linux35&num=1 and http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_37_fsthree&num=1 in the comparisons for speed and such. I know with some tests they are pretty even, but is EXT4 getting more love than XFS from the kernel devs and community at large?
If XFS continues to be used, I would argue to, if the space is available, put in a huge excess of space for /, like 32 GB. Though I tend to agree that ext4 would be a better choice despite performance benefits of XFS.
I am a member!
Do you people really resize you're file systems that often so that something like this is becoming an actual problem ?
You don't need to resize your partitions often for this to become a problem. If you /ever/ have to resize your partitions down the road, not being able to do it is a hassle. Say, for example, you want to install another GNU/Linux distro, like Parabola, alongside Trisquel. If all remaining space is taken up by an XFS partition, you might have to completely delete that partition and recreate it with a backup, then you might have to get existing systems (i.e. Trisquel) to accept the new partition as /home or completely reinstall the existing systems.
The problem is that the default root partition of Trisquel is small (although I do not remember the exact size: 8 GB maybe?). If full, you need to gain place on another partition, that is to say /home (the only other partition in the default install)... and /home is in an XFS partition that cannot be shrunk.
On 13-02-03 11:36 AM, name at domain wrote:
> I was loading up the latest Trisquel 6 test ISO in a virtual machine
> the other day did a 10 GB image just to play around with and see how
> the status of it is. There are actually two things I noticed by lettig
> Trisquel handle my partitioning during that part of the install:
>
> 1. The installer makes the / directory WAY too small and when I tested
> out installing new packages, I kept getting warnings about running out
> of hard drive space. The HOME directory of course was large and in
> charge, but I feel like the ratio was really small. Of course when I
> do a real install, I plan out the partition sizes and leave myself
> enough room.
I filed a bug about this a while ago, haven't heard back about it:
http://trisquel.info/en/forum/root-has-4757-mb-free-space#comment-20075
https://trisquel.info/en/issues/4879
If you're seing the same issue in the Trisquel 6 installer, please
comment on that one.
Since then I always use manual partitioning.
>
> 2. What is the need to use XFS as the default HOME directory? I know
> that with Ubuntu 12.04 and above, the EXT4 file system is pretty solid
> and actually very good for those with SSDs. Another issue is that the
> XFS partitions cannot be resized which could cause issues in the
> future. I know my test was in a virtual machine, but even then I
> couldn't resize the partition to allow some more space. Maybe it is
> time to switch to EXT4 by default for / and HOME partitions?
>
> I know these two things can be fixed by simply using the manual
> partitioning tool in the install and knowing what to look for, but I'm
> concerned about those who just let Trisquel do the work for them. Of
> course this OS is tailored towards the hardcore of the hardcore who
> already know how to manually partition their drives well by now.
Performance, although I'd argue it's not measurable unless you are using
your system for a file server of some sort or regularly access huge
files - which owuldn't be Trisquel's target user though.
This also means I can't just hand over a CD without proper
warnings/handholding :(
F.
--
Fabián Rodríguez
http://fsf.magicfab.ca
Hello all, I am new to Trisquel. I am having a lot of queries. Including this one..
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben