BTRFS vs LVM for VM storage

[Hugo Osvaldo Barrera]

On 02/03/11 11:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:51:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
> 
> Sorry I'm a bit late on this gentle discussion, but I have one
> question about this:
> 
> I use LVM to store virtual machines, one VM per LV, and it's very good
> for that.
> 
> How is BTRFS's performance when used to store VMs (presumably they are
> stored as files)?
> 
> Rich.
> 

Support for LVM won't be dropped anyway, this kind of usage can go on,
and you can just user a separate disk/partition for doing the same thing
you are doing now (presumably, with qemu).

I do the same thing on a second disk, and wouldn't mind re-installing
fedora en my primary on some-other-fs.

I DO worry about how safe the FS is.

I used BTRFS in ubuntu 10.10 on my GFs laptop, and SUDDENLY one day she
ran out of battery, and when she re-booted the whole partition was
empty.  I have not trusted BTRFS since.



-- 
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera