Excerpts from Niels Kobschaetzki's message of 2016-05-29 21:36:38 +0200:

> Why should I use btrfs or lvm with QubesOS? 

IMHO you should use LVM. Because btrfs is IMHO not mature enough. (Personal
anecdote warning) I used it for backups until the partion become read-only and
throw out of space warnings, for no obvious reason.

> I have in my head somewhere looming with real problems when there is not a lot
> of space available, up to a system that is not bootable anymore. Do the tools
> provided by Qubes use features of btrfs like snapshoting or what else it has
> up its sleeves? 

LVM snapshots used to be slow and expensive, but for a few years LVM has thin
pool support.  This is very similar to Btrfs and ZFS snapshot functionality,
saves a ton of diskspace through the overcommit functionality, can be chosen
during QubesOS install is fast (at least fast enough). 

If you really have disk space issues, you can try my LVM patches
(https://github.com/kalkin/qubes-core-admin/tree/qubes3-lvm), which allow
storing domains on thin volumes. This save a ton of space when using multiple
TemplateVMs based on each other, because of the CoW mechanism.

> What problems might arise when one uses btrfs? Is it really stable enough
> nowadays?

IMHO no. I'm using unix/posix systems for more than a decade and btrfs was the
first fs which has “broken down” for me. 


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to