From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ([131.159.0.8]:46014 "EHLO mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750889AbcADOhv (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 09:37:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Confining scrub to a subvolume To: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <56831EA2.3090807@totakura.in> <20151230173949.GH4227@twin.jikos.cz> From: Sree Harsha Totakura Message-ID: <568A5126.20801@totakura.in> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:01:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/30/2015 07:26 PM, Duncan wrote: > David Sterba posted on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:39:49 +0100 as excerpted: > >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 01:00:34AM +0100, Sree Harsha Totakura wrote: >>> Is it possible to confine scrubbing to a subvolume instead of the whole >>> file system? >> >> No. Srub reads the blocks from devices (without knowing which files own >> them) and compares them to the stored checksums. > > Of course if like me you prefer not to have all your data eggs in one > filesystem basket and have used partitions (or LVM) and multiple > independent btrfs, in which case you scrub the filesystem you want, and > don't worry about the others. =:^) I considered it, but after reading somewhere (couldn't find the source) that having a single btrfs could be beneficial, I decided not to. Clearly, it doesn't seem to be true in this case. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I will be using different btrfs file systems based. Regards, Sree Harsha Totakura