Dne pondělí 14. března 2016 19:35:55 CET, Anton Aylward napsal(a):
On 03/14/2016 07:20 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 03/14/2016 06:06 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-03-14 23:03, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 03/14/2016 02:43 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The fact is, if you are using btrfs, you need several subvolumes each tuned differently. As simple as that.
No you don't. I removed subvolumes from my BtrFS RootFS a long time ago. I *chose* to have *some* of the replaced by mountable partitions. But it is still possible to have, for example, /tmp and /opt and /var as plain old directories (which they are anyway).
I know this is possible because I did it before I decided to move them off into separate file systems.
Of course you can replace them with real partitions. If you don't, you should keep the subvolumes.
Please explain why one should keep the subvolumes?
Sorry. I should ask that another way. If subvolumes are that great, why aren't all the subdirectories of / subvolumes? "/etc" for example. Why not "/bin" and "/lib"?
And why aren't there any secondary subvolumes, since that's not prohibited, things like "/usr/lib" which is pretty large, and "/usr/doc"?
I've been told that subvolumes can be snapshotted, whereas folders can't be. That's not so in my experience. I had /etc/ (as well a /bin and /lib...) as a folder not a subvolume and still they were snapshotted when, for example, a zypper upgrade package brought about a change to config file.
If I can say, subvolumes can be excluded from snapshots. It doesn't make sense to keep e.g. content of /tmp in snapshots. Disabling COW is good for performance of DB (and there is no need for snapshoting anyway). So subvolumes can save a lot of space and have positive impact to performance. Of course, if You make Your custom layout which fits Your needs, good for You... -- Vojtěch Zeisek Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/ https://trapa.cz/