| 1 |
Stefan G. Weichinger <lists@×××××.at> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Am 20.12.2015 um 08:40 schrieb J. Roeleveld: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > These new filesystems should really be handed control of the entire disk as |
| 6 |
> > they already include LVM-like functionality. |
| 7 |
> > You can create subvolumes and limit those to different sizes if you so desire. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > When using an additional layer between ZFS/BTRFS and the discs, you will loose |
| 10 |
> > performance with no gain in flexibility. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> And you lose the feature of protecting your blocks against bitrot! |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> btrfs comes with subvolumes and there is no need to use it on top of |
| 15 |
> LVM. If you want separated /, /usr, /var etc cut yourself subvolumes out |
| 16 |
> of your btrfs-filesystem, as mentioned. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> forget LVM with btrfs, it's inside already in a way ;-) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I use btrfs on at least 3 systems for years now. No problems. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> OK, it gives a bit of a learning curve. One big pool of storage |
| 23 |
> (depending on how many disks you throw into it), all the subvolumes |
| 24 |
> share the same free blocks ... this may feel scary and strange at first. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
When I did try it just that way, it failed completely. I created the |
| 28 |
structure, except that I put quotas on each of the subvolumes, and then |
| 29 |
I rsynced the files from my non-btrfs copies which I had to do offline |
| 30 |
using my grml cd, and when I rebooted back into the new arrangements, it |
| 31 |
was a mess. I also got advice from their mailing list that I might want |
| 32 |
separate pools and this is why I was wondering about lvm, since I don't |
| 33 |
want partitions again. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
| 37 |
How do |
| 38 |
you spend it? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
John Covici |
| 41 |
covici@××××××××××.com |
Archives