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