On Wed, 5 May 2010 18:49:44 -0500
C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> any other ideas besides rollbacks and an original snapshot that btrfs
> could be used for?
IIRC it supports data checksumming.
about the whole snapshot/volume naming thing: do what you think is best.
i cannot advise you because i don
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Isaac Dupree
wrote:
> On 05/05/10 19:10, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>>
>> subvolumes can be mounted two ways via a mount option:
>>
>> 1) subvol=
>> 2) subvol=
>>
>> 1 can only be used if the subvolume is in the root of the FS, i.e.
>> /__active would work, but /root
On 05/05/10 19:10, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
subvolumes can be mounted two ways via a mount option:
1) subvol=
2) subvol=
1 can only be used if the subvolume is in the root of the FS, i.e.
/__active would work, but /root/__active would NOT... the mount option
cannot have slashes and i don't kno
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>
> I was the one who proposed aif --expert on the forums ;)
heh yeah, i was too lazy too look it up, and it was all a part of my
secret plan to get you to back me up :)
> Did I understand it correctly that you can fix the "cannot promote
> in my opinion we need to let AIF/etc. integration mature along with
> the FS itself. this way when BTRFS is marked "stable" the tools will
> be ready as well and it will be a minor transition.
I could not say it better myself.
It always takes a while until the 'experimental' flag is removed in
On 05/02/10 15:27, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
rollback support and friends are
very cool (this just saved me the other day actually) and i think
would provide a great benefit to the arch rolling model.
it could save one from pacman running out of disk space when installing
something (which pres
> my main issue is that btrfs is advanced and we have much to think
> about the way we want to include it. rollback support and friends are
> very cool (this just saved me the other day actually) and i think
> would provide a great benefit to the arch rolling model.
additionally its not as simple
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Gaurish Sharma
wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 12:40 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>>
>>
>> BTRFS is not marked stable by the developers yet, its dangerous to include
>> it in the interest of arch newbies. A disk crash may spoil the impression of
>> Arch.
>>
>> In my opinio
On 05/03/2010 12:40 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
BTRFS is not marked stable by the developers yet, its dangerous to
include it in the interest of arch newbies. A disk crash may spoil the
impression of Arch.
In my opinion, we should wait some more time till the developers of
BTRFS release
On 05/03/2010 12:13 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
hello,
i maintain an unofficial btrfs initcpio hook in AUR:
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33376
BTRFS is not marked stable by the developers yet, its dangerous to
include it in the interest of arch newbies. A disk crash may spoil
10 matches
Mail list logo
