Public bug reported:
In the past, lxd "just worked" on btrfs, as it would automatically put
containers/images into subvolumes for snapshotting. Now it's apparently
necessary to explicitly create a "storage pool" for it. I wouldn't see
why one would ever want to use a plain "dir" or even a zfs pool on an
existing btrfs, so the question could just be skipped in this case.
However, even when going through "lxd init" manually, the questionaire
is confusing. My intention is to just use /var/lib/lxd on my normal
btrfs system:
Do you want to configure a new storage pool (yes/no) [default=yes]?
Name of the new storage pool [default=default]:
Name of the storage backend to use (dir, btrfs) [default=dir]: btrfs
Create a new BTRFS pool (yes/no) [default=yes]? yes
Would you like to use an existing block device (yes/no) [default=no]? yes
Path to the existing block device: /dev/sda
But I aborted here, as it's not clear at all whether this will wipe my
hard disk to create a new btrfs file system there I hope that would fail
due to some "busy" error, but I'd rather not take the chance. I now went
the safe way of creating a loopback image, but having a btrfs loopback
image on btrfs is just pointless.
Package: lxd
Version: 2.12-0ubuntu3
** Affects: lxd (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Tags: zesty
** Tags added: zesty
** Description changed:
In the past, lxd "just worked" on btrfs, as it would automatically put
containers/images into subvolumes for snapshotting. Now it's apparently
necessary to explicitly create a "storage pool" for it. I wouldn't see
why one would ever want to use a plain "dir" or even a zfs pool on an
existing btrfs, so the question could just be skipped in this case.
However, even when going through "lxd init" manually, the questionaire
is confusing. My intention is to just use /var/lib/lxd on my normal
btrfs system:
- Do you want to configure a new storage pool (yes/no) [default=yes]?
- Name of the new storage pool [default=default]:
+ Do you want to configure a new storage pool (yes/no) [default=yes]?
+ Name of the new storage pool [default=default]:
Name of the storage backend to use (dir, btrfs) [default=dir]: btrfs
Create a new BTRFS pool (yes/no) [default=yes]? yes
Would you like to use an existing block device (yes/no) [default=no]? yes
Path to the existing block device: /dev/sda
But I aborted here, as it's not clear at all whether this will wipe my
hard disk to create a new btrfs file system there I hope that would fail
due to some "busy" error, but I'd rather not take the chance. I now went
the safe way of creating a loopback image, but having a btrfs loopback
image on btrfs is just pointless.
+
+ Package: lxd
+ Version: 2.12-0ubuntu3
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771
Title:
confusing btrfs storage pool creation
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
