On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 3:57 AM Peter Boy <p...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> > > > Am 15.09.2023 um 04:57 schrieb Felix Miata <mrma...@earthlink.net>: > > > > BTRFS devs seem to > > think only one is somehow better due to its inclusion of LVM technology. > > There is no „inclusion of LVM technology“ in BTRFS. LVM provides you with > several separate filesystems, completely independent from each other. A > file system failure in one LVM volume does not affect any of the other > volumes. All data in other volumes are safe. In BTRFS, everything is a > single huge file system, (sub)volumes are just logical groupings within a > single, in the worst case faulty, file system. The advantage of BTRFS is > greater flexibility and effectiveness of disk capacity usage, at the > expense of data protection. > BTRFS protects us from "silent" corruption of files, which is more of an issue with large volumes of data. The greater flexibility and effectiveness of BTRFS minimizes the need to reorganize filesystems when a partition runs out of space. For large organizations with many users, btrfs is expected to reduce problems with data corruption, time spent paying users to do housekeeping tasks, and the added wear on flash memory of reorganizing filesystems. -- George N. White III
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
