On 2015-12-15 09:18, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:54:01AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-12-14 16:26, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
<ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed, if yo9u can't substantiate _why_ it's bad practice, then you aren't
making a valid argument. The fact that there is software that doesn't
handle it well would say to me based on established practice that that
software is what's broken, not common practice.
The automobile is invented and due to the ensuing chaos, common
practice of doing whatever the F you wanted came to an end in favor of
rules of the road and traffic lights. I'm sure some people went
ballistic, but for the most part things were much better without the
brokenness or prior common practice.
Except for one thing: Automobiles actually provide a measurable
significant benefit to society. What specific benefit does
embedding the filesystem UUID in the metadata actually provide?
That one's easy to answer. It deals with a major issue that
reiserfs had: if you have a filesystem with another filesystem image
stored on it, reiserfsck could end up deciding that both the metadata
blocks of the main filesystem *and* the metadata blocks of the image
were part of the same FS (because they're on the same block device),
and so would splice both filesystems into one, generally complaining
loudly along the way that there was a lot of corruption present that
it was trying to fix.
IIRC, that was because of the way the SB was designed, and is why other
filesystems have a UUID in the superblock.
I probably should have been clearer with my statement, what I meant was:
What specific benefit does using the UUID for multi-device filesystems
to identify the various devices provide?
--
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
