On 10/23/2014 07:25 PM, Duncan wrote:
See the discussion above. As for whether conflicting options error out, get ignored, or update the whole filesystem, there has been some discussion on the list but IDR the conclusion as it doesn't pertain to me since I don't use subvolumes like that, preferring fully independent filesystems on their own partitions, instead. (If the filesystem metadata gets corrupted, it can easily mean the loss of all data on it. Subvolumes provide little if any protection in that regard. I *STRONGLY* prefer not to put all my data eggs in one filesystem basket, in case its bottom falls out.) I believe in some cases either the conflicting mount will error out or it'll mount but ignore the conflicts (IOW, it shouldn't arbitrarily rewrite the option for the entire filesystem, that's what remount is for!), but don't know if it actually works that way for everything yet. Either watch for a response from someone with practical knowledge of the situation, or do your own testing, before you depend on it.
Ouch, I abandoned multiple hard partitions on any one spindle a long, long time ago. The failure modes likely to occur just don't justify the restrictions and hassle. Let alone the competitive file-system scheduling that can eat your system performance with a box of wine.
I've been in this mess since Unix System 3 release 4. The mythology of the partitioned disk is deep and horrible. Ever since they stopped the implementation of pipes as anonymous files on the root partition, most of the reasoning ends up backward.
Soft failures are likely to spray the damage all over all the filesystems by type, and a disk failure isn't going to obey the partition boundaries.
Better the efficiency of the whole disk file-systems and a decent backup plan.
Just my opinion. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
