On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@xxxxxxx> wrote: > People often use separate partitions because they don't want all their > data eggs in one basket, and because it makes administration easier for > some things. A read-only by default rootfs is far safer in the event of I have a laptop with two partitions, one is encrypted and has root /home, etc. The other isn't encrypted and has things like the latest TED talks I downloaded. The potential problem with this scheme is that if the volume of encrypted data starts taking more than the amount of space allocated for it then things will become difficult. But as the unencrypted data tends to grow faster that doesn't seem to be likely. I'm just planning my first BTRFS server which will run in a location other than my home. This is significant because my ability to fix things will be limited. For that server I will use Ext4 for / and BTRFS for everything else. Then if something goes wrong there will be a chance that I can at least login remotely to fix the BTRFS filesystem. My home server has / and /home on a SSD and a RAID-1 array of 2*3TB disks mounted on /big. I have had a number of BTRFS related problems with that system and BTRFS for / hasn't made it easier to solve them. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ -- 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
