On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Hugo Mills <h...@carfax.org.uk> wrote: >> One minor thing -- you've still got nested subvolumes here. You can >> still run into the same kinds of management problems (not being able >> to use mv efficiently to move subvolumes around). "active" doesn't >> need to be a subvolume, it can (and, I'd argue, should) be an ordinary >> directory. > > I agree. Or just incorporate into the naming convention of the > subvolume. I've been following a variation on the naming scheme in the > "What We Propose" here: > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
The server will indeed be a nspawn container with Fedora > which is more intended for stateless systems. I add a field at the end > :current vs :date where :date is yyyymmdd with an optional -X sequence > in case there's more than one snapshot per day. > > > -- > Chris Murphy -- google.com/+arnaudgabourygabx -- 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
