Re: Why subvolume and not just volume?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2015-08-06 03:23, Duncan wrote:
Martin posted on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 09:06:40 +0200 as excerpted:

[W]hat is the penalty of a subvolume compared to a directory? From a
design perspective, couldn't all directories just be subvolumes?

In addition to the performance issues mentioned by others, there's at
least one further practical reason as well.

Snapshots stop at subvolume boundaries.  It's thus quite useful to use
subvolumes to delineate the limits of the snapshot, saying, in effect,
snapshot this dir (which happens to be a subvol not just a normal dir)
recursively, but don't snapshot the subtree starting with this nested
subdir (which again is a (different) subvol).

And for some people, this is very useful functionality. I use it to specifically exclude subsets of trivially reproducible data from backups (for example, I always clone public git repositories into individual subvolumes, and keep my local copy of the Portage tree on a separate one (when it isn't on a separate filesystem that is)).

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux