On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 04:27:30PM -0500, Tim Cuthbertson wrote: > I have recently switched from multiple partitions with multiple > btrfs's to a flat layout. I will try to keep my question concise. > > I am confused as to whether a snapshots container should be a normal > directory or a mountable subvolume. I do not understand how it can be > a normal directory while being at the same level as, for example, a > rootfs subvolume. This is with the understanding that the rootfs is > NOT at the btrfs top level. > > Which should it be, a normal directory or a mountable subvolume > directly under btrfs top level? If either way can work, what are the > pros and cons of each?
The current best practice recommendation is that it should be a
normal directory, not contained within any of the subvolumes that are
being snapshotted. So (using the @-prefix convention to indicate a
subvol), you'd have something like this:
<top-level>
@root
@home
snapshots
root
@2017-03-28
@2017-03-29
home
@2017-03-28
@2017-03-29
To use this, mount the top level of the FS (-o subvolid=0) on a
known path, such as /media/btrfs/<fslabel>/, and do the subvol
management, and nothing else, under that mount.
(Optionally, you can flatten the dir hierarchy to
/snapshots/@root-2017-03-28, but I prefer the slightly deeper version
above).
The snapshots container can be either a dir or a subvol, but you
gain almost nothing from it being a subvol, and you lose the ability
to move subvols/snapshots in and out of it cheaply with mv. Hence the
recommendation to use a directory.
Hugo.
--
Hugo Mills | O tempura! O moresushi!
hugo@... carfax.org.uk |
http://carfax.org.uk/ |
PGP: E2AB1DE4 |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
