On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:15 AM, arnaud gaboury <arnaud.gabo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
There's a recent thread "Recursive subvolume snapshots and deletion?" about systemd nspawn containers. Those are organized in a nested fashion, and hence one of the reasons for the recursive snapshot feature request. -- Chris Murphy -- 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
