Re: btrfs resize partition problem

Russell Coker
Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:05:04 -0000

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
wrote:
> People often use separate partitions because they don''t want all
their
> data eggs in one basket, and because it makes administration easier for
> some things.  A read-only by default rootfs is far safer in the event of

I have a laptop with two partitions, one is encrypted and has root /home, etc.
The other isn''t encrypted and has things like the latest TED talks I
downloaded.  The potential problem with this scheme is that if the volume of
encrypted data starts taking more than the amount of space allocated for it
then things will become difficult.  But as the unencrypted data tends to grow
faster that doesn''t seem to be likely.

I''m just planning my first BTRFS server which will run in a location
other
than my home.  This is significant because my ability to fix things will be
limited.  For that server I will use Ext4 for / and BTRFS for everything else.
Then if something goes wrong there will be a chance that I can at least login
remotely to fix the BTRFS filesystem.

My home server has / and /home on a SSD and a RAID-1 array of 2*3TB disks
mounted on /big.  I have had a number of BTRFS related problems with that
system and BTRFS for / hasn''t made it easier to solve them.

--
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/