On 03/14/2016 07:55 PM, Uzair Shamim wrote:>
Hope that made some sense as to why those subvolumes are created.
No. I'm sure some on the list found you TL;DR interesting but it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know this time last year and completely failed to address any of my reasons why I'm, after a long stint and trying to promote BtrFS, finally giving up on it. In particular you don't address why mounted file systems should not be used instead of subvolumes. The benefit of BtrFS being one monolithic entity (rather like CICS was on the mainframe) subsuming all spindles, all space into one disk management system that also does file systems on the side can be thought of as "efficient (in the same way that CICS was compared to the UNIX approach of individual small things that "did one thing, only one thing and then got out of the way"[1]) is quite another matter. The argument of 'efficiency' this way is an old one that UNIX purists have always disputed in favour of the "just one thing" approach. Sadly, UNIX and Linux follow the macrokernel approach. https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/487i3o/does_a_monolithic_kernel_arch... None of that debate really addresses what message passing micro-kernels CAN do. David Cheriton's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cheriton V System showed that you can spread a process over many machines on a network. Mind you, his microkernel was only a few hundred bytes so it was VERY fast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_%28operating_system%29 [1] Under the IBM model, process creation was so expensive that it could only be done once at system boot. This mentality meant that the UNIX idea of 'light-weight' processes could not even be considered. At the time, UNIX was very revolutionary. -- 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