On 12-02-25 09:37 PM, Fahrzin Hemmati wrote: > > Nope, still in heavy development, though you should upgrade to 3.2.
I recall being told I should upgrade to 2.6.36 (or was it .37 or .38) at one time. Seems like one should always upgrade. :-/ > Also, the devs mentioned in several places it's not friendly to small > drives, and I'm pretty sure 5GB is considered tiny. But it won't ever get taken serious if it can't be used on "regular" filesystems. I shouldn't have to allocate an 80G filesystem for 3G of data just so that the filesystem isn't "tiny". > I don't think you need to separate /usr out to it's own disk. You could > instead create a single drive with multiple subvolumes for /, /var, > /usr, etc. The point is to separate filesystems which can easily fill with application data growth from filesystems that can have more fatal effects by being filled. That said, I don't think having /var as a subvolume in the same pool as / and /usr achieves that usage isolation, does it? Isn't /var still allowed to consume all of the space that it, / and /usr share with them all being subvolumes in the same pool? > When you have Ubuntu use btrfs for /, it creates @ and @home > for / and /home, respectively, Yes, I had noticed that. I also didn't immediately see anything that prevents /home from filling / as I describe above. Cheers, b.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
