From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9406C1381F1 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F001021C0C9; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:59:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost03d.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost03d.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.23]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E3421C07F for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:59:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [81.108.251.46] (helo=mail.digimed.co.uk) by smarthost03d.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1bfmBk-000427-Nz for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:59:12 +0000 Received: from digimed.co.uk (fenchurch.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.6]) by mail.digimed.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5F43E539C67 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:59:12 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:59:07 +0100 From: Neil Bothwick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive? Message-ID: <20160902115907.7540eba3@digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <20160901095407.5d687e41@digimed.co.uk> <11891788.gD9ohsj6BR@serenity> <20160901184214.7905de4c@digimed.co.uk> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/BNSqgWVtOSpcoxkq1oZf98W"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Originating-smarthost03d-IP: [81.108.251.46] Feedback-ID: 81.108.251.46 X-Archives-Salt: 9a4b906d-9887-4e11-9235-dbb5dc638772 X-Archives-Hash: 17b1a6efe9d3a2604889ac0514496308 --Sig_/BNSqgWVtOSpcoxkq1oZf98W Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:54:40 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Bind mounts? I thought you would use btrfs subvolumes! > > =20 >=20 > Often the bind mounts point to btrfs subvolumes. >=20 > Yeah, I guess I could directly mount all those subvolumes, but I find > symlinks or bind mounts easier. The other factor is that if I have > unnecessary subvolumes then I'm having to manage snapshots across more > of them and my snapshots are less atomic, since snapshots don't cross > subvolume boundaries (which is something which ought to be > configurable). I use a script to handle my snapshots, so snapshotting multiple subvolumes is less of an issue, but an option to snapshot a subvolume and all its children, or even the whole filesystem, would be nice. --=20 Neil Bothwick Remember, it takes 47 muscles to frown And only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle.... --Sig_/BNSqgWVtOSpcoxkq1oZf98W Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAlfJW3sACgkQum4al0N1GQO3uACfd8azt+P1waF85P+bAz2loZ8F hmUAoLe/SnDbBWzfOTI/2wTvvGk/3i5I =EVUt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/BNSqgWVtOSpcoxkq1oZf98W--