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

2020-12-12 Thread donoban
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 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 mistake while using my computer.

Qubes creates a "snapshot" when you start a VM using reflink copies.

If you look at "/var/lib/qubes/appvms/" (or other btrfs pool)
on dom0 you will see some "private.img.XX@-XX-". This files are
snapshots from that date before the AppVM was started.

Currently you can use 'qvm-volume' for revert some image to an older
state but you will lose the present image. If you want to start an older
image you can create a new VM and overwrite his 'private.img' with some
"private.img.XX@-XX-".

Hopefully in the future this could be improved, I would like to just
start a DispVM based in a snapshot using few mouse clicks or a single
command.

In any case I recommend you to do regular backups ;)

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/69433d29-a02b-5f94-86b4-420826c74b3b%40riseup.net.


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-23 Thread Chris Laprise

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, 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 handling is flexible enough to
allow writing a module to handle btrfs even better than in Qubes 3.x.
But it is unlikely that we'll manage to write such module for 4.0. If
someone would contribute such module, then yes - it will be supported.
Otherwise, probably somehow around 4.1 or later.

- --

You realize that some of us have been happily using btrfs features with
Qubes in a way that produces better work flows?

If ITL desires a modular storage layer, wouldn't the best approach be to
offer a general image file module *first* to emulate the current
architecture? That way, people can continue to have the same storage choices
and backup procedures they already do.

File backend is also available, but we haven't added new features to it
(like multiple snapshots etc).
Probably it could be easily extended to proper btrfs module (for example
by dropping dm-snapshot over files and simply use cp --reflink=always).

- -- 


Good to know there is a file back end.

I also was thinking about having qvm-backup reference a particular 
'backup' pool which points to a subvolume containing all the vms the 
user wishes to backup; Then differential backups could be done quite 
easily with 'btrfs send' without a lot of overhead. And vms could very 
easily be moved in/out of the backup pool/subvolume pairing.


But that may be too filesystem-specific for the new storage layer.

Chris

--
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/c91f4586-a8a3-255d-f5fb-d5a177e05355%40openmailbox.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-23 Thread Chris Laprise

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 thin pool?"

This is a good question. The new storage handling is flexible enough to
allow writing a module to handle btrfs even better than in Qubes 3.x.
But it is unlikely that we'll manage to write such module for 4.0. If
someone would contribute such module, then yes - it will be supported.
Otherwise, probably somehow around 4.1 or later.

- -- 


You realize that some of us have been happily using btrfs features with 
Qubes in a way that produces better work flows?


If ITL desires a modular storage layer, wouldn't the best approach be to 
offer a general image file module *first* to emulate the current 
architecture? That way, people can continue to have the same storage 
choices and backup procedures they already do.


Chris

--
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/3b8adced-078d-8776-93b6-a212eed2e186%40openmailbox.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-22 Thread Franz
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 a LVM thin pool?"
> >
> > This is a good question. The new storage handling is flexible enough to
> > allow writing a module to handle btrfs even better than in Qubes 3.x.
> > But it is unlikely that we'll manage to write such module for 4.0. If
> > someone would contribute such module, then yes - it will be supported.
> > Otherwise, probably somehow around 4.1 or later.
>
> 4.0 will be less flexible in this respect?
>
> LVM thin volumes sound interesting (just read up on them today) and handy
> for allocation, but they'll be mandatory for VM storage??
>
> (Again, as mentioned in my earlier post, btrfs seems like it would meet
> the same needs and then some.)
>
> Why is it that so many things I hear about 4.0 are concerning to me?
>
> I realize one must make sacrifices and architectural choices in the name
> of progress.
>
> But so far what I know of 4.0 is that it won't run on any of my PCs, it
> won't (initially at least) support btrfs root, and the "decomposition"
> sounds like it's going to spread configuration stuff in various places
> rather than in one spot, the Qubes Manager (well, and the menu), where
> they're generally very easy to find.
>
> (There was something else that didn't sit well with me, but it escapes my
> feeble mind at the moment.  Might have been something to do with hardware
> or processor requirements.)
>
> I know there are some incredibly talented people working on Qubes, and a
> great community surrounding it, so my fears are probably largely
> unfounded; but I'm a bit afraid to invest in fully settling into and
> committing to a system (which has been great so far), if the next major
> release won't work for me.
>
> Once 4.0 comes out, what happens to 3.2?  Will it be supported for awhile,
> moved forward at all, or just marked as deprecated/EOL'd and more or less
> abandoned?
>

Once 4.0 comes out it will be beta for some time and people will be
discouraged of using it for production, as happened for past releases. But
look here for an idea of support of previous releases:
https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/supported-versions/
Best
Fran

>
> JJ
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/qubes-users/429588c1db7fa0d2df95a73160c305e5.webmail%40localhost.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/CAPzH-qCH2duRxvzUio4Dd7XRaexVnF0GAx5xnUf0N%2Bcv_H%2B%2B1Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-22 Thread johnyjukya
> -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 handling is flexible enough to
> allow writing a module to handle btrfs even better than in Qubes 3.x.
> But it is unlikely that we'll manage to write such module for 4.0. If
> someone would contribute such module, then yes - it will be supported.
> Otherwise, probably somehow around 4.1 or later.

4.0 will be less flexible in this respect?

LVM thin volumes sound interesting (just read up on them today) and handy
for allocation, but they'll be mandatory for VM storage??

(Again, as mentioned in my earlier post, btrfs seems like it would meet
the same needs and then some.)

Why is it that so many things I hear about 4.0 are concerning to me?

I realize one must make sacrifices and architectural choices in the name
of progress.

But so far what I know of 4.0 is that it won't run on any of my PCs, it
won't (initially at least) support btrfs root, and the "decomposition"
sounds like it's going to spread configuration stuff in various places
rather than in one spot, the Qubes Manager (well, and the menu), where
they're generally very easy to find.

(There was something else that didn't sit well with me, but it escapes my
feeble mind at the moment.  Might have been something to do with hardware
or processor requirements.)

I know there are some incredibly talented people working on Qubes, and a
great community surrounding it, so my fears are probably largely
unfounded; but I'm a bit afraid to invest in fully settling into and
committing to a system (which has been great so far), if the next major
release won't work for me.

Once 4.0 comes out, what happens to 3.2?  Will it be supported for awhile,
moved forward at all, or just marked as deprecated/EOL'd and more or less
abandoned?

JJ

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/429588c1db7fa0d2df95a73160c305e5.webmail%40localhost.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-22 Thread Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
-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 handling is flexible enough to
allow writing a module to handle btrfs even better than in Qubes 3.x.
But it is unlikely that we'll manage to write such module for 4.0. If
someone would contribute such module, then yes - it will be supported.
Otherwise, probably somehow around 4.1 or later.

- -- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX5GVwAAoJENuP0xzK19csk+8H/iTHdf8HHg1hdegkOomh4Mip
yX65o+td3tDgpaODsZSjmAYPO/tIHkFPqheuHb6Hm+KvUvmplbh6b49T3A+ZYZS0
Fvsq29znmxqV7Xx/AZ/hmmIXjVEqs4ZYfmBWEzC8Oke91PLjMoMfcxvfCEbbDn0S
z5jYqiK0Ld3qligwzWTqj7Na/tAUeXZC4vAEZfyq5XtPsMEIpMniG4CGptLUBcht
x82ZbKBtl2oYA25gb2g+mK/KE5z2yQMVbeuxisMYUGsnmU0Tu7tfFa87TaDuBwgD
1qC8x8YCCJxAo9pkGQ/atjNDyV7N/HJYDfKCcursooti1F0td7vKzDw3aqi++mI=
=oY6G
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/20160922231248.GR31510%40mail-itl.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-22 Thread Connor Page
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 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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/faba39bf-b1fb-4071-a361-a99a0dcf0366%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-22 Thread Chris Laprise

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 hardly
any extra space is used when you clone a template or other vm.

Chris

Now that's cool, how do you enable that? Just install Qubes with btrfs root vol?


Qubes uses a variation on the copy command that causes Linux to do it 
whenever possible. It's not a condition of installation or a setting or 
anything like that.


Chris

--
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/abe9a791-1a01-87cb-28b0-92b932caad46%40openmailbox.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-22 Thread sejug
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 you clone a template or other vm.
> 
> Chris

Now that's cool, how do you enable that? Just install Qubes with btrfs root vol?

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/8030aad2-e53f-43b5-8b7a-c0ff744e4686%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] BTRFS?

2016-09-22 Thread Chris Laprise

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 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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/5650a036-675e-a335-10d8-bab71a6c1d15%40openmailbox.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [qubes-users] btrfs vs lvm?

2016-05-30 Thread Chris Laprise



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 had the same issue: More than a couple of dozen whole-fs
snapshots made the fs readonly. Booting a newer kernel and removing some
of the snapshots fixed it then.

Rusty



IIRC, kernel 3.17 and later are considered safe bets for btrfs.

Chris

--
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/574CA281.2020200%40openmailbox.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.