Am Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013, 18:41:11 schrieb George Mitchell:
On 05/23/2013 09:08 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
3) As to my knowledge mount times of large partitions can be quite
long with ReiserFS 3.
That may well be, but I certainly wouldn't consider btrfs mount times
fast in such
Am Freitag, 24. Mai 2013, 06:13:04 schrieb Duncan:
2) Due to snapshots I know have well snapshots for my backup. And even
on SSD for my /home. I am not yet creating those in an automated way,
but well I do use them.
As I already mentioned the warning on the wiki, do be aware of the
Martin Steigerwald posted on Thu, 23 May 2013 18:08:35 +0200 as excerpted:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 13:19:31 schrieb Martin:
Yep, ReiserFS has stood the test of time very well and I'm still using
and abusing it still on various servers all the way from something like
a decade ago!
Very
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 13:19:31 schrieb Martin:
Yep, ReiserFS has stood the test of time very well and I'm still using
and abusing it still on various servers all the way from something like
a decade ago!
Very interesting. I only used it for a short time and it worked.
But co-workers lost
On 05/23/2013 09:08 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
3) As to my knowledge mount times of large partitions can be quite
long with ReiserFS 3.
That may well be, but I certainly wouldn't consider btrfs mount times
fast in such cases.
[root@localhost ghmitch]# time mount LABEL=BACKUP /backup
On 21/05/13 04:37, Chris Murphy wrote:
On May 20, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 19 May 2013 12:18:19 -0600 as
excerpted:
It seems inconsistent that mount and unmount allows a /dev/
designation, but only mount honors label and UUID.
Duncan,
Thanks for quiet a historical summary.
Yep, ReiserFS has stood the test of time very well and I'm still using
and abusing it still on various servers all the way from something like
a decade ago!
More recently I've been putting newer systems on ext4 mainly to take
advantage of extents
In my case, I am backing up a system spanning five drives formatted
btrfs, on a separate drive containing a separate backup volume and
multiple complete backups, each from a different point in time. This
gives me protection from filesystem corruption, since the backups are on
a separate
On May 21, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Martin m_bt...@ml1.co.uk wrote:
On 21/05/13 04:37, Chris Murphy wrote:
I'm going to contradict myself and point out that mount with label or
UUID is made unambiguous via either the default subvolume being
mounted, or the -o subvol= option being specified. The
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 19 May 2013 12:18:19 -0600 as excerpted:
On May 19, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.ru wrote:
From a user perspective btrfs subvolumes have a lot in common with just
regular directories aka folders, and nothing in common with
(block)devices.
Duncan, The problem affects btrfs volumes that span multiple drive. If
you are using btrfs on a single drive that works just fine. But in a
multidrive situation, sometimes it works (when umount guesses the right
device name) and sometimes it fails (when umount guesses the wrong
device
On May 20, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 19 May 2013 12:18:19 -0600 as excerpted:
It seems inconsistent that mount and unmount allows a /dev/ designation,
but only mount honors label and UUID.
Yes.
I'm going to contradict myself and
George Mitchell posted on Mon, 20 May 2013 19:17:39 -0700 as excerpted:
Duncan, The problem affects btrfs volumes that span multiple drive. If
you are using btrfs on a single drive that works just fine. But in a
multidrive situation, sometimes it works (when umount guesses the right
device
On 05/20/2013 08:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
Then I ran into hardware issues that turned out to be bad caps on my
8- year-old mobo (tho it was dual-socket first-gen opteron, which I
had upgraded to top-of-its-line dual-core Opteron 290s, thus four
cores @ 2.8 GHz, with 8 gigs RAM, so it wasn't as
On 10/05/13 15:03, George Mitchell wrote:
One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
perspective ... The current method of simply using a
random member device or a LABEL or a UUID is just not working well for
me. Having a well thought out virtual device
On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:03:38 -0700
George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
perspective regarding btrfs is the current lack of virtual devices to
describe volumes and subvolumes.
From a user perspective btrfs
In reply to both of these comments in one message, let me give you an
example.
I use shell scripts to mount and unmount btrfs volumes for backup
purposes. Most of these volumes are not listed in fstab simply because
I do not want to have to clutter my fstab with volumes that are used
only
OK, so to summarise:
On 19/05/13 15:49, George Mitchell wrote:
In reply to both of these comments in one message, let me give you an
example.
I use shell scripts to mount and unmount btrfs volumes for backup
purposes. Most of these volumes are not listed in fstab simply because
I do not
On May 19, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.ru wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:03:38 -0700
George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
perspective regarding btrfs is the current lack of virtual devices to
On May 19, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
It's not possible to mount regular directories with other file systems. In
some ways the btrfs subvolume behaves like a folder. In other ways it acts
like a device. If you stat the mount point for btrfs subvolumes,
One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
perspective regarding btrfs is the current lack of virtual devices to
describe volumes and subvolumes. The current method of simply using a
random member device or a LABEL or a UUID is just not working well for
me.
21 matches
Mail list logo
