Re: [atomic-devel] Btrfs + overlayfs

[Dusty Mabe <dusty dustymabe com>]

On 07/21/2017 04:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:

> 
> If you don't want to have all your eggs in one red basket, but still
> prefer a more conservative approach, you could consider status quo for
> cloud/atomic host installations; and just move workstation-ostree to
> Btrfs. It's not that widely used yet, it's not a release blocking
> image, and it's easily reversed. But it's more work to support both
> things.
> 

Since workstation-ostree is booted from an ISO the user can choose what
FS and we don't have to impose anything on them. We have defaults and then
they can choose what they want.

That being said, we have to actually make btrfs work with ostree/rpm-ostree
technology in order to even make it an option. I've opened an issue for that
here: https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/306

While Red Hat hasn't had much incentive to prioritize working on btrfs since
Red Hat doesn't use it, having these issues clearly laid out somewhere and trying to
quantify the work and solicit help from the community should help us break down
these barriers.  

Dusty