Recycling electrons: https://www.kubuntuforums.net/showthread.php?68088
Btrfs has oodles of advantages over other file systems. Note particularly Oshun's examples in his post #24 in that thread.
Btrfs has oodles of advantages over other file systems. Note particularly Oshun's examples in his post #24 in that thread.
You can see it because now to do these things, you are suddenly dependent on learning that specific filesystem's way of doing it. It is no longer a component that stands loose, that is separate from the filesystem layer. So it's like Microsoft selling windows with Explorer (Internet Explorer). You can't (couldn't get) explorer without Windows, and you can get Windows without Explorer. Not sure how to frame it.
You lose differentation into layers and the independence that results from it. Now suddenly in order to do backups you must do BTRFS. And how compatible is it going to be if some deviate form of that surfaces? You are putting all kinds of features into that FS and tying it to that FS. And you lack or lose the freedom to go elsewhere.
Rollback:
Auto-snapshot prior to package install/update.
Delete auto-snapshots at a configurable number or age.
Restore the rollback snapshot when requested.
Backup:
Incremental auto-backup at a configurable interval.
Restore backup on request.
The fun thing I'm playing with lately is the send/receive feature. You can send a subvolume to a different device or to a file for backup purposes.
Auto-snapshot prior to package install/update.
Delete auto-snapshots at a configurable number or age.
Restore the rollback snapshot when requested.
Backup:
Incremental auto-backup at a configurable interval.
Restore backup on request.
The fun thing I'm playing with lately is the send/receive feature. You can send a subvolume to a different device or to a file for backup purposes.
I don't fancy this ****. You are going the wrong way. Added complexity, added dependence, trying to solve a problem in a place where it shouldn't be solved. Etc. Perhaps this is meant as one of those "let's agree to disagree" instances ;-).
Comment