[lxc-users] lxd: "-B backingstore" equivalent?

[Serge Hallyn]

Quoting Mark Constable (markc at renta.net):
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 03:54:06 PM Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > > Does this mean that btrfs is considered a second class option
> > > with the primary focus and most of your future lxd backing
> > > store effort being put into LVM?
> > 
> > It is, for a few reasons.
> 
> Sorry to persist with this but would you mind elaborating briefly on
> some of those reasons or point me to further discussion please?

We didn't want to depend on a single fs.  Also, btrfs still has some
performance issues (esp at fsync, which kills apt-get), and people
still seem to hit corruption with it (though other people seem to run
it rock-solid with no issues).

> I have invested heavily in btrfs so I am a little "shocked" at this
> news. If I want to stick to btrfs then would I be better off relying
> on legacy lxc?

I don't think we'll be dropping the support we have.  We definately
won't be adding support for zfs, overlayfs, etc.

Can you say a bit more about how your usage depends on btrfs?

-serge