On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 21:14:15 ACDT Liam Proven wrote:
On 20/11/2018 11:37, Richard Brown wrote:
Backup and restore is best served by using btrfs' incremental backup features Piffle. You do *not* get to dictate to anyone what FS they use or what backup methodology.
Agreed. Opinions are one thing (and can be heeded or ignored), but dictating to users how things SHALL be done is the domain of M$ and Apple, not Linux.
The best backup method is a totally separate copy of the data on other media in another computer, and then filesystem is irrelevant.
Completely agreed.
* performance optimisation (OS on SSD, home on disk)
This is not true, the current behaviour of our partitioner does NOT support OS on SSD and /home on disk
Don't care.
Secondly, it should. This is an absolutely basic scenario; otherwise you are assuming that everyone has expensive kit or an unlimited budget. Rotating media are still much cheaper than SSD and probably will be for as long as Linux is around.
Again, spot on! I have / on SSD, /home on a RAID10 array on rotating rust, along with a separate RAID10 array for bulk data, separate partitions for / downloads, /usr/local, /var, /root and /boot. (Yes, I'm old school, but I prefer to have those partitions separate for multiple reasons). Oh, and /tmp, /dev and /run are RAM disks, not physical partitions.
Having a single filesystem is bar far easier to repair, troubleshoot, and recover data from. Speaking from experience, having to worry about half a dozen partition boundries when recovering data from a broken hard disk is an absolute nightmare
Hi. Professional systems engineer since the 1980s here.
Essentially every single part of that statement is wrong.
Yes, it is. Build resilience and fault-tolerance into the system using redundancy and a failed disk simply becomes an annoyance, not a recovery exercise. Use the right RAID levels and multiple failed disks can be tolerated. Modern, large capacity disks seem to have become less reliable (in some variants and some batches); I've had to have disks replaced under warranty more than once, and never have I lost data because of it.
All of which are fine reasons for users who care about those use cases to click the tickbox to have a separate /home
It is a profound error to optimise for any one particular use case.
Be flexible, not rigid. Remember Postel's law.
Yes!
But none of those are valid as the 'default' usecase for openSUSE - we don't support installing multiple versions of the distro alongside each other, nor do we support parallel user of /home from multiple distros - no way your /home dotfiles will be kept sane in those cases.
What we "support" does not enter into this.
This is the community distro. Questions of what any organisation supports are for paid support contracts and the enterprise distros they serve.
It is not a community distro's place to try to impose anything on anyone.
Defaults are one thing. Saying "don't do that because we don't support it" is entirely another.
Thanks for speaking up, Liam. Absolutely right! -- ============================================================== Rodney Baker VK5ZTV rodney.baker@iinet.net.au CCNA #CSCO12880208 ============================================================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org