(responding to both George and Go Canes)
On 9/19/2025 1:30 PM, George N. White III wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:13 PM home user via users
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've seen a few references to "sub-volumes" in this thread.
What are the advantages of using sub-volumes?
They can replace partitions, which use a fixed size, so if you guess
wrong you
have to put in the effort to resize. Sub-volumes help with
organization of files, but
don't impose arbitrary restrictions on how a filesystem organizes
files, so generally
they
What are the trade-offs?
Not all filesystems support them. Some use cases require making
images of
filesystem which may require a format common to multiple systems.
Are they required or optional?
Not required, but would need manual creation of the filesystems --
extra work
and opportunities to break things.
On 9/19/2025 3:23 PM, Go Canes wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 1:13 PM home user via users
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What are the advantages of using sub-volumes?
>
> Flexibility
>
>> What are the trade-offs?
>
> "With great power comes great responsibility."
> OK - just complexity.
>
>> Are they required or optional?
>
> Totally optional (maybe depending on file system type?).
>
> Here's an example. Assume you have a system with a spare slot for a
> 2nd disk drive, and you have configured the 1st disk drive using LVM.
> You start running out of space. You could add the 2nd drive and
> expand LVM to use the 2nd drive, and expand one or more Logical
> Volumes using the additional space.
>
> Another example. Using something like zfs sub-volumes all share the
> same space, so one sub-volume could fill the space at the expense of
> the others. But you can assign a quota to the sub-volumes to prevent
> that. And then if you later determine that a sub-volume needs more
> space - and the space is available - you just increase its quota.
>
> You will find different opinions, but generally for a single-user
> desktop/laptop, sub-volumes aren't but so valuable. Personally I use
> LVM on Fedora, but I used LVM on Red Hat (and other Unixes) in the
> corporate world so for me it isn't a big deal. I use zfs on my
> TrueNAS - in fact I went with TrueNAS *because* it has zfs. Again, I
> used zfs on Solaris in the corporate world, so I already knew how to
> use and manage it.
Thank-you.
My sense at the moment is that I neither need nor want sub-volumes. But
I'm keeping an open mind about that.
--
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
