Jesse Emeth posted on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:58:12 +0800 as excerpted: > Hi Duncan > > The backup is irrelevant in this case. I have a backup of this > particular problem. > I've had BTRFS on my OS system blow up several times. > There are several snapshots of this within the subvolume. > However, such snapshots are not helpful unless they are snapshots > copied elsewhere with restore/rsync etc.
How can backups and snapshots not be helpful in terms of a problem where you'd be using undelete? Undelete implies the filesystem is fine and that you're just trying to get a few files that you mistakenly deleted back, which in fact was the claim, and both backups and snapshots should allow you to do just that, get your deleted files back. > I had spoken to someone expressing my concerns with BTRFS on IRC. > He wanted me to present this so that such problems could be rectified. > I also wanted to learn more about BTRFS to see if my determinations > about its inadequacies were incorrect. > > Thus I want to follow this through to see if what is actually a very > very small problem related to just a non essential small Firefox cache > directory can actually be fixed. > At present this very very small problem brings down the entire volume > and all subvolumes with no way to mount any of it rw or easily fix the > issue. > That is not sane for such a small issue. That's not a file undelete issue. That's an entire filesystem issue. Quite a different beast, and not one that I directly addressed in my reply (altho the data value vs. backups stuff applies to fat-fingering such as mistaken deletes, filesystem problems, hardware problems, and natural disasters, all four), because both the title and the content suggested a file undelete issue, which /was/ addressed. -- 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
