From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kaspar Schleiser Subject: Re: Synching a Backup Server Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:29:35 +0100 Message-ID: <4D3F087F.20905@schleiser.de> References: <201101060935.14059.CACook@quantum-sci.com> <20110109183030.GA29572@carfax.org.uk> <201101221455.45968.hka@qbs.com.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cc: Freddie Cash , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Hubert Kario Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201101221455.45968.hka@qbs.com.pl> List-ID: On 01/22/2011 02:55 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: >> It looks like ZFS, Btrfs, and LVM should work in similar manners, but >> the overloaded terminology (pool, volume, sub-volume, filesystem are >> different in all three) and new terminology that's only in Btrfs is >> confusing. > > With btrfs you need to have *a* filesystem, once you have it, you can add and > remove disks/partitions from it, no need to use 'mkfs.btrfs', just 'btrfs'. That's just a design decision, right? There's no need for a "default" or "root" subvolume. It should be rather easy to change btrfs so that you first have to create a "storage pool" which combines disks for btrfs, and on top of that you can create "filesystems" which are just subvolumes. The creation of a "storage pool" could be very similar to the current mkfs, just without the creation of a root subvolume. A new, simpler mkfs would then just create a subvolume on top of the "storage pool" that can be mounted. Regards, Kaspar