On 03/15/2016 11:39 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Subvolumes are more space efficient that having separate partitions for each. A single partition for everything on the whole disk is always more efficient, simply because on each partition you have to leave some free space for use later, or not. And you have to guess how much space will be needed. If all is a single partition, there is a single, common, free space pool. That is more "efficient".
That's always been true, even back in the V6/V7 days of the late 1970s. In fact it was worse (and still is with the Ext file systems) when you have to make that same allocation "guess" between inode space and data space. We might consider the "All the disk devoted to a single file system" the "NULL Argument" of file systems. The number of arguments against it are many. Al to many issues to do with optimization and maintenance are non-linear, grow exponentially with the size of the file system. FSCK is a prime example of this. Yes, BtrFS has its own maintenance tools; do you imagine they are linear against size? I haven't seen metrics on this. Has anyone done any?
Of course, again, you may choose to use separate partitions instead for whatever reasons.
There are, once again, many. Quite apart from issues of "barriers" against abuse, a potential flaw of the single file system model that "quotas' are a weak protection against (and how many of us use quotas, want to manage them, especially on our personal workstations?), there are security issues and other matters. I've already touched on the issue that it may be beneficial to match the characteristics of the FS to the application running on it. Of course some people simply won't care one way or another, despite the dramatic results from Phoronix.
But that's your intentional and controlled choice as admin. For an automated install procedure that has to suit thousands of users, once the choice was made to use btrfs, it's becomes obvious there is advantages with using subvolumes.
Basically what you're saying is that most people are (a) to dumb to care, (b) to dumb to notice and (c) quite content to let other people make decisions for them. Well, current world-wide politics certainly supports the latter. -- 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