> Am 07.02.2022 um 23:35 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx>: > > 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 >> 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. >> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/IOPR2R3SCKOFUCKPLMS4MDD5664SGQFR/ > > From btrfs-quota(8): > > 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 own partition. The obvious problem is that those limits > cannot be changed without a reinstallation. The btrfs subvolume feature > builds a bridge. Subvolumes correspond in many ways to partitions, as > every subvolume looks like its own filesystem. With subvolume quota, it > is now possible to restrict each subvolume like a partition, but keep > the flexibility of quota. The space for each subvolume can be expanded > or restricted on the fly. 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 logical volumes instead, which can easily "changed without a reinstallation“ and space for any logical volume "can be expanded or restricted on the fly“. The latter even easier with „thin provisioning“. And of course you can do backups and restores via snapshot, it's called LVM snapshot. What a surprise. And you can do all that without that "subvolume (only) looks like its own filesystem“ but in reality are not separate and independent filesystems but merely pretend to be. BTRFS has specific advantages, without a doubt. And it is attractive for specific use cases. But it's not a silver bullet against all the tribulations of file storage, nor is it the only way to the future of IT. And by far it is not the almighty system, which fits everything as default, as many "BTRFS missionaries" would have you believe, throwing buzz words around. Peter _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
