Marc MERLIN posted on Wed, 07 May 2014 03:55:51 -0700 as excerpted:
> subvolumes are also used as units of backup for btrfs send.
Hmm, yes. Thanks. I don't use send/receive here so forgot about that.
>> So my vote would be, for example (modified slightly for posting from my
>> own mounts):
>>
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 02:12:30AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Marc MERLIN posted on Sat, 03 May 2014 17:47:32 -0700 as excerpted:
Just as an FYI, like (likely) most subscribers, I do prefer Cc on
replies. Without that, I'm much less likely to see your message timely,
or at all if I'm behind on Email.
Marc MERLIN posted on Sat, 03 May 2014 17:47:32 -0700 as excerpted:
> Is there any functional difference between
>
> mount -o subvol=usr /dev/sda1 /usr
> and
> mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/btrfs_pool
> mount -o bind /mnt/btrfs_pool/usr /usr
>
> ?
Brendan answered the primary aspect of this well so I
Brendan Hide posted on Mon, 05 May 2014 08:55:55 +0200 as excerpted:
> You are 100% right, though. The scale is very small. By negligible, the
> "penalty" is at most a few CPU cycles. When compared to the wait time on
> a spindle, it really doesn't matter much.
The analogy I've used before is tha
On 05/03/2014 08:47 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Is there any functional difference between
mount -o subvol=usr /dev/sda1 /usr
and
mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/btrfs_pool
mount -o bind /mnt/btrfs_pool/usr /usr
The internal implementation of mount -o subvol is a bind mount. The
only real difference is havi
On 05/05/14 06:36, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 06:13:30 +0200
Brendan Hide wrote:
1) There will be a *very* small performance penalty (negligible, really)
Oh, really, it's slower to mount the device directly? Not that I really
care, but that's unexpected.
Um ... the penalty is i
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 06:13:30AM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
> >Oh, really, it's slower to mount the device directly? Not that I really
> >care, but that's unexpected.
>
> Um ... the penalty is if you're mounting indirectly. ;)
I'd be willing to believe that more then :)
(but indeed, if slowdown
On Mon, 05 May 2014 06:13:30 +0200
Brendan Hide wrote:
> >> 1) There will be a *very* small performance penalty (negligible, really)
> > Oh, really, it's slower to mount the device directly? Not that I really
> > care, but that's unexpected.
>
> Um ... the penalty is if you're mounting indirectl
On 2014/05/05 02:56 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 09:07:55AM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 2014/05/04 02:47 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Is there any functional difference between
mount -o subvol=usr /dev/sda1 /usr
and
mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/btrfs_pool
mount -o bind /mnt/btrfs_pool/us
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 09:07:55AM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
> On 2014/05/04 02:47 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> >Is there any functional difference between
> >
> >mount -o subvol=usr /dev/sda1 /usr
> >and
> >mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/btrfs_pool
> >mount -o bind /mnt/btrfs_pool/usr /usr
> >
> >?
> >
> >Than
On 2014/05/04 02:47 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Is there any functional difference between
mount -o subvol=usr /dev/sda1 /usr
and
mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/btrfs_pool
mount -o bind /mnt/btrfs_pool/usr /usr
?
Thanks,
Marc
There are two "issues" with this.
1) There will be a *very* small performance pena
Is there any functional difference between
mount -o subvol=usr /dev/sda1 /usr
and
mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/btrfs_pool
mount -o bind /mnt/btrfs_pool/usr /usr
?
Thanks,
Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems
12 matches
Mail list logo
