Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:54:53 -0500 | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Re: Tux3 Report: Initial fsck has landed |
| |
On 03/19/2013 06:00:32 PM, 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.
I'm confused, http://tux3.org/ lists a bunch of dates from 5 years ago, then nothing. Is this project dead or not?
Rob
| |