Re: [qubes-users] Btrfs (file-reflink): Why is the CoW on a volatile.img enabled?

Thank you for your clarification. Also, many thanks for maintaining the file-reflink storage driver. -- 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+u

Re: [qubes-users] Btrfs (file-reflink): Why is the CoW on a volatile.img enabled?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Rusty Bird: > Disabling CoW and hence checksums (besides being specific to Btrfs - > file-reflink is filesystem agnostic) Although for volatile volumes in particular it might be possible to get away with (optionally, configured per-volume) attemptin

Re: [qubes-users] Btrfs (file-reflink): Why is the CoW on a volatile.img enabled?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 449f09c92: > had to edit the relevant code to disable CoW when volatile.img is > created file-reflink doesn't inherently do CoW for volatile volumes, it just defaults to whatever the underlying location on the filesystem does. For Btrfs, to get noco

[qubes-users] Btrfs (file-reflink): Why is the CoW on a volatile.img enabled?

I have /dev/xvdc configured as a 10GB swap and had to edit the relevant code to disable CoW when volatile.img is created to avoid overloading dom0 by checksum calculation when swapping out occurs in the VM. Is there any reason why copy-on-write is enabled on volatile volumes that are mostly us

Re: [qubes-users] btrfs for template/appvm

Hi, On 12/12/20 1:36 AM, 'keyandthegate' via qubes-users wrote: > I want to use btrfs for the snapshots feature in my appvms. > > I know Qubes supports btrfs for dom0: > https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/2340 > > > Does Qubes sup

[qubes-users] btrfs for template/appvm

I want to use btrfs for the snapshots feature in my appvms. I know Qubes supports btrfs for dom0: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/2340 Does Qubes support using btrfs in individual appvms? If not is there some other way I can get snapshots? It would make me less afraid to make a m

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

On 09/23/2016 08:00 AM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:42:07AM -0400, Chris Laprise wrote: On 09/22/2016 07:12 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, Sep 22, 20

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:42:07AM -0400, Chris Laprise wrote: > On 09/22/2016 07:12 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:56:57PM -0700, Connor Page wrote: >

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

On 09/22/2016 07:12 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:56:57PM -0700, Connor Page wrote: In fact, I think the right question is "Will Qubes 4 be compatible with btrfs root if vm storage is expected to reside on a LVM

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:59 PM, wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:56:57PM -0700, Connor Page wrote: > >> In fact, I think the right question is "Will Qubes 4 be compatible with > >> btrfs root if vm storage is expected to reside on

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:56:57PM -0700, Connor Page wrote: >> In fact, I think the right question is "Will Qubes 4 be compatible with >> btrfs root if vm storage is expected to reside on a LVM thin pool?" > > This is a good question. The new

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:56:57PM -0700, Connor Page wrote: > In fact, I think the right question is "Will Qubes 4 be compatible with btrfs > root if vm storage is expected to reside on a LVM thin pool?" This is a good question. The new storage ha

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

In fact, I think the right question is "Will Qubes 4 be compatible with btrfs root if vm storage is expected to reside on a LVM thin pool?" -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

On 09/22/2016 02:08 PM, se...@redhat.com wrote: On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:39:20 PM UTC-4, Chris Laprise wrote: On 09/22/2016 01:05 PM, johnyju...@sigaint.org wrote: Has the Qubes team ever considered the use of btrfs? Qubes tools will even utilize btrfs reflinks where possible, so

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:39:20 PM UTC-4, Chris Laprise wrote: > On 09/22/2016 01:05 PM, johnyju...@sigaint.org wrote: > > Has the Qubes team ever considered the use of btrfs? > > > > Qubes tools will even utilize btrfs reflinks where possible, so hardly > any extra space is used when

Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

On 09/22/2016 01:05 PM, johnyju...@sigaint.org wrote: Has the Qubes team ever considered the use of btrfs? Qubes tools will even utilize btrfs reflinks where possible, so hardly any extra space is used when you clone a template or other vm. Chris -- You received this message because you ar

[qubes-users] BTRFS?

Has the Qubes team ever considered the use of btrfs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs It's been the default root FS for Suse since 2012: https://www.linux.com/news/suse-linux-says-btrfs-ready-rock While reading about its features (and using it) it seems like it would be especially well-suite

Re: [qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

On 05/30/2016 11:35 AM, Rusty Bird wrote: Bahtiar `kalkin-` Gadimov: 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. On Qubes 3.0, I h

Re: [qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

Bahtiar `kalkin-` Gadimov: > 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. On Qubes 3.0, I had the same issue: More than a couple of

Re: [qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

Hi, 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 spac

Re: [qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

Hi Chris, > On May 30, 2016 at 1:27 AM Chris Laprise wrote: > > On 05/29/2016 03:36 PM, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote: > > > Hi, > Hi Niels, Thanks a lot, very interesting post. I am really thinking about re-installing Qubes with BtrFS but I probably need a bigger SSD first. Niels -- You r

Re: [qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Chris Laprise wrote: > > > On 05/29/2016 03:36 PM, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> is it just me or is in the documentation no explanation why one should >> use over the other? I also couldn't really find anything in the >> ML-archive. >> >> Why should I

Re: [qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

On 05/29/2016 03:36 PM, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote: Hi, is it just me or is in the documentation no explanation why one should use over the other? I also couldn't really find anything in the ML-archive. Why should I use btrfs or lvm with QubesOS? I have in my head somewhere looming with real pr

Re: [qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2016-05-29 12:36, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote: > Hi, > > is it just me or is in the documentation no explanation why one > should use over the other? I also couldn't really find anything in > the ML-archive. > > Why should I use btrfs or lvm with Q

[qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

Hi, is it just me or is in the documentation no explanation why one should use over the other? I also couldn't really find anything in the ML-archive. Why should I use btrfs or lvm with QubesOS? I have in my head somewhere looming with real problems when there is not a lot of space available, up