On Tuesday, January 25, 2011 18:29:35 Kaspar Schleiser wrote: > On 01/22/2011 02:55 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: > >> It looks like ZFS, Btrfs, and LVM should work in similar manners, but > >> the overloaded terminology (pool, volume, sub-volume, filesystem are > >> different in all three) and new terminology that's only in Btrfs is > >> confusing. > > > > With btrfs you need to have *a* filesystem, once you have it, you can add > > and remove disks/partitions from it, no need to use 'mkfs.btrfs', just > > 'btrfs'. > > That's just a design decision, right? There's no need for a "default" or > "root" subvolume. > > It should be rather easy to change btrfs so that you first have to > create a "storage pool" which combines disks for btrfs, and on top of > that you can create "filesystems" which are just subvolumes. > > The creation of a "storage pool" could be very similar to the current > mkfs, just without the creation of a root subvolume. > > A new, simpler mkfs would then just create a subvolume on top of the > "storage pool" that can be mounted. > > Regards, > Kaspar
I'm not sure, but for btrfs to support storage pools the way ZFS does would require change in disk layout. Besides, I don't see *why* this should be done... And as far as I know ZFS doesn't support different reduncancy levels for different files residing in the same directory. You can have ~/1billion$-project.tar.gz with triple redundancy and ~/temp.video.mkv with no reduncancy with btrfs... Regards, -- Hubert Kario QBS - Quality Business Software 02-656 Warszawa, ul. Ksawerów 30/85 tel. +48 (22) 646-61-51, 646-74-24 www.qbs.com.pl -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
