On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Mitch Harder <mitch.harder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Wilfred van Velzen <wvvelzen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> What is best practice when partitioning a device that holds one or >> more btr-filesystems >> > > When it comes to "best practices" in btrfs filesystem layouts, your > primary consideration should be to make yourself robust to potential > filesystem failure. > > Of course this should be true of any storage arrangement. > > But if you're going to be playing with rc kernels and applying patches > off the list, you might want to break it up into multiple partitions > so as to mitigate the problem if one partition picks up a > inconsistency. > > On the other hand, it's also good for people to use the volume and > subvolume features. There's many different ways for people to make > use of volumes and subvolumes, and it's good to explore those > features. Well, of course there are different usecases for different situations. What I want to find out is, if you should partition differently when you are using btrfs compared to partitioning for the other older/regular filesystems for linux, for regular (production) usecases. (I'm not interested in what early adopter users do when they are using rc kernels...) http://btrfs.ipv5.de/index.php?title=UseCases#What_is_best_practice_when_partitioning_a_device_that_holds_one_or_more_btr-filesystems -- Wilfred. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
