On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:27:39 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > Honestly, I tend not to create separate partitions for separate mount >> > points these days. At least, not on personal systems. For servers, >> > it's can be beneficial to have /var separate from /, or /var/log >> > separate from /var, or /var/spool, or /var/lib/mysql, or what have >> > you. But the biggest driver for that, IME, is if one of those fills >> > up, it can't take down the rest of the host. > >> The other big use case these days would be SSDs. I tend to have one >> SSD filesystem for root, and one SSD filesystem for everything else. >> That means a lot of bind mounts, but it all works. > > Bind mounts? I thought you would use btrfs subvolumes! >
Often the bind mounts point to btrfs subvolumes. Yeah, I guess I could directly mount all those subvolumes, but I find symlinks or bind mounts easier. The other factor is that if I have unnecessary subvolumes then I'm having to manage snapshots across more of them and my snapshots are less atomic, since snapshots don't cross subvolume boundaries (which is something which ought to be configurable). -- Rich
