Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:04:15 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Lang <> | Subject | Re: Tux3 Report: Initial fsck has landed |
| |
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2013 schrieb Daniel Phillips: >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:20:11PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:27:38PM -0800, David Lang wrote: >>>>> The situation I'm thinking of is when dealing with VMs, you make a >>>>> filesystem image once and clone it multiple times. Won't that end up >>>>> with the same UUID in the superblock? >>>> >>>> Yes, but one ought to be able to change the UUID a la tune2fs >>>> -U. Even still... so long as the VM images have a different UUID >>>> than the fs that they live on, it ought to be fine. >>> >>> ... and this is something most system administrators should be >>> familiar with. For example, it's one of those things that Norton >>> Ghost when makes file system image copes (the equivalent of "tune2fs >>> -U random /dev/XXX") >> >> Hmm, maybe I missed something but it does not seem like a good idea >> to use the volume UID itself to generate unique-per-volume metadata >> hashes, if users expect to be able to change it. All the metadata hashes >> would need to be changed. > > I believe that is what BTRFS is doing. > > And yes, AFAIK there is no easy way to change the UUID of a BTRFS filesystems > after it was created.
In a world where systems are cloned, and many VMs are started from one master copy of a filesystem, a UUID is about as far from unique as anything you can generate.
BTRFS may have this problem, but why should Tux3 copy the problem?
David Lang
| |