Re: On persistency in newer live-boot
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 20:05:53 Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 04/10/2012 03:26 PM, anonym wrote:
> > Snapshots can no longer be partitions; only snapshot files are
> > supported.
>
> absolutely.
I agree too.
The only drawback of this is to cancel the original use case that had me
develop snapshot in the first place. In a school environment, have some 'work'
files readable without too much problems also on windows in a fat32 partition
on the usb key. The snapshot was required to not stress to much flash memory
and fat32 was a requirement to play nice with that "home" os.
A part this, no problem with that. I'm not interested a lot in this use case,
but beware that it could be used in similar environments so before cutting a
feature to achieve string beauty think twice please.
> > If this is acceptable I propose that snapshots are activated by a
> > live-persistence.conf option called
> > "snapshot=PATH_TO_SNAPSHOT_FILE" (extension is optional). A
>
> > complete example line is:
> ack.
>
> unrelated to that: imho, the term 'snapshot' is a misnomer.
>
> i understand and expect something different under a snapshot in the
> filesystem context. for me, a snapshot consists not of the diff but of
> the entire data of a filesystem. like a dump made at a particular
> point in time.
The name came from the way it is used time-wise, not content-wise. Because you
must "sync" it (automatically at reboot/halt or manually with live-snapshot).
> while we are at it and this is a good time to name things properly, do
> you have a better, more suitable name in mind we could use instead of
> 'snapshot' to designate an 'overlay packed into a file'?
> > We could probably drop support for /etc/live-persistence.binds
What replaces that thing nowadays? It was handy to save some unwanted data to
be saved/restored.
--
ESC:wq
Reply to: