[zfs-discuss] How ZFS is better than btrfs
rudd-o at rudd-o.com
Thu Mar 29 03:19:51 EDT 2012
Thanks for your feedback! I have fixed the article everywhere where I was
repeating this dumb statement of mine.
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 13:13:24 Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
> <rudd-o at rudd-o.com> wrote:
> > http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than
> > -btrfs
> You can mount an entire tree of ZFS file systems in one operation.
> You have to mount each individual subvolume separately with btrfs.
> That is not true.
> If you mount btrfs root tree (not sure if that's the right term). then
> all subvolumes will be visible under that mount as well.
> If you mount a subvolume that has a subvolume under it, the
> sub-subvolume will be visible under that mount. For example:
> $ sudo btrfs su li /
> ID 371 top level 5 path subvol/lxc/precise
> ID 372 top level 5 path subvol/lxc/precise/rootfs
> If I mount subvolid=5, the root tree and all subvols will be visible.
> If I mount subvolid=371, the content of subvolid 372 will be visible
> under the directory "rootfs" under the mount point.
> I'd change the statement to
> You can mount a ZFS file systems without mounting its children. If you
> mount a btrfs subvolume, you always see all children of that
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
More information about the zfs-discuss