On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Phillip Susi <psusi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/18/2014 2:17 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> What if you have a Btrfs raid1 volume using two LV’s and then >> snapshot both LV’s? > > That's even more silly than a single lvm snapshot under btrfs. Just > don't do it. Why is it silly? Btrfs on a thin volume has practical use case aside from just being thinly provisioned, its snapshots are block device based, not merely that of an fs tree. Looks like lvm.conf does have a way to affect LV autoactivation, and there may be another way to achieve this also. Right after the snapshot(s) they’d need to have their autoactivation disabled to avoid UUID confusion. Chris Murphy-- 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
