On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Hugo Mills <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One minor thing -- you've still got nested subvolumes here. You can > still run into the same kinds of management problems (not being able > to use mv efficiently to move subvolumes around). "active" doesn't > need to be a subvolume, it can (and, I'd argue, should) be an ordinary > directory. I agree. Or just incorporate into the naming convention of the subvolume. I've been following a variation on the naming scheme in the "What We Propose" here: http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html which is more intended for stateless systems. I add a field at the end :current vs :date where :date is yyyymmdd with an optional -X sequence in case there's more than one snapshot per day. -- 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
