On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 6:30 AM Peter Boy wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 08.02.2022 um 12:11 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan :
> >
> > On Tue, 2022-02-08 at 16:48 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
> >> You may actually want hard size limits on different partitions.
> >
> > You can still have this with subvolumes. See
On 2022-02-08 17:28, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2/8/22 04:56, Peter Boy wrote:
The quote describes a situation which has gone for more of a decade
now. Since we have LVM (when got that part of the Linux kernel? kernel
2.6? 2004 or so? Don’t know exactly), no one would partition a hard
disk
On 2/8/22 04:56, Peter Boy wrote:
The quote describes a situation which has gone for more of a decade now. Since we have
LVM (when got that part of the Linux kernel? kernel 2.6? 2004 or so? Don’t know exactly),
no one would partition a hard disk along file system subdirectories. You create
On Tue, 2022-02-08 at 17:15 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/22 12:44, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > On 2/8/22 05:56, Peter Boy wrote:
> > > no one would partition a hard disk along file system
> > > subdirectories.
> >
> > Want to bet? Some of us, especially home users, consider LVM a
> >
On 2/8/22 12:44, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 2/8/22 05:56, Peter Boy wrote:
no one would partition a hard disk along file system subdirectories.
Want to bet? Some of us, especially home users, consider LVM a
pointless complication for our use case and never use it.
I am still using EXT4
On 2/8/22 05:56, Peter Boy wrote:
no one would partition a hard disk along file system subdirectories.
Want to bet? Some of us, especially home users, consider LVM a
pointless complication for our use case and never use it.
___
users mailing list
On Tue, 2022-02-08 at 13:56 +0100, Peter Boy wrote:
> > On the other hand, the traditional approach has only a poor
> > solution to
> > restrict directories. At installation time, the harddisk can be
> > partitioned so that every directory (eg. /usr, /var/, ...) that
> > needs a
> > limit gets its
> Am 08.02.2022 um 12:11 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan :
>
> On Tue, 2022-02-08 at 16:48 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
>> You may actually want hard size limits on different partitions.
>
> You can still have this with subvolumes. See btrfs-quota(8).
Yes, a sentence beginning with „You can have
> Am 07.02.2022 um 23:35 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan :
>
> On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 11:50 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 2/6/22 08:17, Paolo Galtieri wrote:
>>> so why are / and /home the same device?
>>
>>
>> To the question of "why," I'd think the answer is in the discussion
>> held
>> in
On Tue, 2022-02-08 at 16:48 +1030, Tim via users wrote:
> You may actually want hard size limits on different partitions.
You can still have this with subvolumes. See btrfs-quota(8).
poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 14:12 -0800, jdow wrote:
> Why bother with defining a separate /home at all? It gives a false
> sense of security.
There are various different reasons people do partitioning (whether
that be home, boot, var, whatever). It's not all about security (or
lack of).
You might
On 2/7/22 14:12, jdow wrote:
Ah, fix it so that when the system logs run away you can also destroy
user data that has not been written yet.
That's... not really how POSIX works. And most logs on Fedora should be
in the journal at this point, has a maximum size.
Gd planning. Why
On 2022-02-07 5:39 p.m., Joe Zeff wrote:
On 2/7/22 15:12, jdow wrote:
Ah, fix it so that when the system logs run away you can also destroy
user data that has not been written yet. Gd planning. Why bother
with defining a separate /home at all? It gives a false sense of
security.
Only
On 2/7/22 15:12, jdow wrote:
Ah, fix it so that when the system logs run away you can also destroy
user data that has not been written yet. Gd planning. Why bother
with defining a separate /home at all? It gives a false sense of security.
Only if you define it as btrfs.
On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 11:50 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 2/6/22 08:17, Paolo Galtieri wrote:
> > so why are / and /home the same device?
>
>
> To the question of "why," I'd think the answer is in the discussion
> held
> in the devel@ mailing list linked below. Generally, sharing the
>
On 20220207 11:50:12, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2/6/22 08:17, Paolo Galtieri wrote:
so why are / and /home the same device?
To the question of "why," I'd think the answer is in the discussion held in
the devel@ mailing list linked below. Generally, sharing the storage pool in
order to avoid
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 11:50:12 -0800
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Generally, sharing the storage
> pool in order to avoid running out of space in one location when there
> was still space left in the pool due to "bad" partitioning choices was
> seen as a benefit.
Yep, I've been partitioning systems
On 2/6/22 08:17, Paolo Galtieri wrote:
so why are / and /home the same device?
To the question of "why," I'd think the answer is in the discussion held
in the devel@ mailing list linked below. Generally, sharing the storage
pool in order to avoid running out of space in one location when
> Am 07.02.2022 um 10:43 schrieb GianPiero Puccioni
> :
>
> On 06/02/2022 23:48, Peter Boy wrote:
> about using brtfs:
>
>> Among the cons is, as your /home grows it minimizes the space for „/„. So it
>> can completely block your system (this could not happen with F31 and xfs.)
>> But you
> Am 07.02.2022 um 00:00 schrieb Samuel Sieb :
>
> On 2/6/22 14:48, Peter Boy wrote:
>> BTRFS subvolumes are not dedicated volumes as you may have used to in Fedora
>> 31. That version used xfs filesystem, where every volume is a separate
>> space, not entangeled with any other volume.
>
>
On 06/02/2022 23:48, Peter Boy wrote:
about using brtfs:
Among the cons is, as your /home grows it minimizes the space for „/„. So it
can completely block your system (this could not happen with F31 and xfs.)
But you can take other group activities, e.g. limit the maximum space for
the group
On 2/6/22 14:48, Peter Boy wrote:
BTRFS subvolumes are not dedicated volumes as you may have used to in Fedora
31. That version used xfs filesystem, where every volume is a separate space,
not entangeled with any other volume.
Before btrfs, workstation used ext4 as the default. It was only
> Am 06.02.2022 um 18:26 schrieb Paolo Galtieri :
>
> The system is x86_64 and I'm using brtfs. So that clears that up:
>
> findmnt --notruncate /
>
> TARGET SOURCE FSTYPE OPTIONS
> / /dev/nvme0n1p10[/root00]
> btrfs
>
The system is x86_64 and I'm using brtfs. So that clears that up:
findmnt --notruncate /
TARGET SOURCE FSTYPE OPTIONS
/ /dev/nvme0n1p10[/root00]
btrfs
rw,relatime,seclabel,ssd,space_cache,subvolid=276,subvol=/root00
findmnt --notruncate /home
TARGET SOURCE
Hi.
On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 11:42:22 -0500 "Garry T. Williams" wrote:
> You probably have / and /home on subvolumes of a btrfs file system.
+1
The clearer way to see that is probably to use:
findmnt --notruncate /
findmnt --notruncate /home
Example: see the subvol= option:
findmnt
On Sunday, February 6, 2022 11:17:25 AM EST Paolo Galtieri wrote:
> so why are / and /home the same device? In the past / and /home where
> separate devices.
You probably have / and /home on subvolumes of a btrfs file system.
That is the current default configuration now.
--
Garry T. Williams
> Am 06.02.2022 um 17:17 schrieb Paolo Galtieri :
>
> Folks,
> today I ran into a strange problem. Both the root file system and the
> /home filesystem showed 100% usage:
>
> df -l
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> ...
> /dev/nvme0n1p10 283625472 281920988
27 matches
Mail list logo
