Zygo Blaxell posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:08:56 -0400 as excerpted: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:04:38PM -0400, Vincent Olivier wrote: >> >> OK fine. Let it be clearer then (on the Btrfs wiki): nobarrier is an >> absolute no go. Case closed. > > Sometimes it is useful to make an ephemeral filesystem, i.e. a btrfs on > a dm-crypt device with a random key that is not stored. This > configuration intentionally and completely destroys the entire > filesystem, and all data on it, in the event of a power failure. It's > useful for things like temporary table storage, where ramfs is too > small, swap-backed tmpfs is too slow, and/or there is a requirement that > the data not be persisted across reboots. > > In other words, nobarrier is for a little better performance when you > already want to _intentionally_ destroy your filesystem on power > failure.
Very good explanation of why it's useful to have such an otherwise destructive mount option even available in the first place. Thanks! =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- 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
