On 11/15/2014 11:14 AM, Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote:
On Saturday 15 November 2014 08:51:11 Anton Aylward wrote:
On 11/15/2014 02:46 AM, Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote:
I've heard/read somewhere that Btrfs handles virtual machines badly, because of huge random access disk file and COW nature of Btrfs, can anyone confirm that?
DUH?
Why not do as I have done - create another partition using another FS type and mount that under /home/<user>/VMs/
What? You mean you are not using LVM and can't create (possibly encrypted) partitions on-demand as the need arises? Can't take snapshots to simplify backups?
Hm, that is really good idea. I do not trust LVM, so I will experiment with mounting subvolume with nodatacow, maybe that will work as I expect...
NOT! I can't see why not to trust LVM. Its got a good heritage before it was imported into Linux. I've been using it for nearly a decade and its never given me any problems. Its at least as reliable as the extN file systems and the ReiserFS. I've not used XFS so I can't comment. I say "NOT!" becuase a subvolume of a BtrFS partition is not really a new partition, its and administrative & management aspects. In many ways it behaves like a subdirectory in that it uses space on the 'parent'. You are NOT, repeats NOT mounting a new piece of storage. The manual page says quite explicitly <quote> A subvolume in btrfs is not like an LVM logical volume, which is quite independent from each other, a btrfs subvolume has its hierarchy and relations between other subvolumes. </quote> -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org