Re: Is anyone using btrfs send/receive for backups instead of rsync?

[Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>]

On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 12:15 -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 09:57:40AM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:48:10AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Marc MERLIN <marc@merlins.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > If one day, it could at least work on a subvolume level (only sync a
> > > > subvolume), then it would be more useful to me. Maybe later…
> > > 
> > > Maybe I'm missing something, but btrfs send/receive only work on a subvolume level.
> > 
> > Never mind, I seem to be the one being dense. I mis-read that you needed
> > to create the filesystem with btrfs receive.
> > Indeed, it's on a subvolume level, so it's actually fine since it does
> > allow over provisionning afterall.
> 
> Mmmh, but I just realized that on my laptop, I do boot the btrfs copy
> (currently done with rsync) from time to time (i.e. emergency boot from
> the HD the SSD was copied to).
> If I do that, it'll change the filesystem that was created with btrfs
> receive and break it, preventing further updates, correct?
> 
> If so, can I get around that by making a boot snapshot after each copy
> and mount that snapshot for emergency boot instead of the main volume?

Yes that will work.

-chris