I don't need volume groups!

Posted Jan 8, 2009 5:43 UTC (Thu) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link]

In reply to: Actually RAID/volume management is superlimited when not in filesystem... by Da_Blitz Parent article: Btrfs aims for the mainline Yes, that's more or less how I do it today. But it's insane: I have a perfectly capable system developed to automate tasks, it can do billions of operations per second and yet it can not automagically reallocate space for me? Pathetic. Plus I want ALL metainformation keept on ALL drives: it's small amount of data, after all, and even if I can restore all files from DVDs it's certainly easier toes, that's more or less how I do it today. But it's insane: I have a perfectly capable system developed to automate tasks, it can do billions of operations per second and yet it can not automagically reallocate space for me? Pathetic. Plus I want ALL metainformation keept on ALL drives: it's small amount of data, after all, and even if I can restore all files from DVDs it's certainly easier to do if I'll know what exactly was stored on that broken drive! Sure I can develop a lot of palliatives (I do ls -lR regularly and store it on RAIDed partition), but it's all ugly and stupid. do if I'll know what exactly was stored on that broken drive!

So what you really want is one logical volume with arbitrary tags on block allocation and replication on a per file basis.

Tux3 approach of keeping metadata information in normal files strikes me as being the nicest way to map meta-data onto multiple physical volumes.

Perhaps in the future we'll handle proper separation of concerns when it comes to different layers properly instead of munging em all in one.

The real bitch though with that is backward compatibility.

Since we'd effectively be splitting existing file systems up into two separate concerns , a block format and a file system format composed of blocks.