TL:DR
Is there anything wrong with pushing VM partitions beyond the physical drive size, as long as data doesn't exceed the physical drive size (which it can't for obvious reasons). Corruption? Backup size? Privacy? or just no code available yet to tailor VM sizes to unique drive sizes?
- - - -
These 4 questions above reflect the confusement to which this thread seeks to solve and find answers to. They might not be all be the reasons, or perhaps there is another reason altogether.
Root of the question that either makes the question trivial, or very important:
On one hand, it might just be that there hasn't been any code made yet for this otherwise trivial exercise to change the virtual partition sizes. On the other hand, it also gives the impression that Qubes is discouraging making virtual partitions too big compared to the drive, for a good reason which hasn't been easily explained to the masses.
Afterthought:
The latter hand scenario is worrying, considering the very small 2GB home folder partition size, when the technology of virtual partitions doesn't appear to have an actual hard limit, as long as data doesn't exceed the soft limit. Hence, should one be careful here? or is there really just another less serious reason for the 2GB home folder partition size out-of-the-box? For example Why isn't it just set to say, 100GB, or even 10.000GB by default, if virtual partition sizes doesn't matter and most keep track of disk usage in Dom0 anyway?
I'm asking, since I'm considering to simply give each of my AppVM's the size of my physical drive, and just keep track of the used drive space with Dom0/XFCE4.
If there are any reasons to be careful? or perhaps one should follow hard to find guidelines to virtual partition sizes?
It would be really appreciated to find a solid answer, or even just the best answer available.
Cheers,
Yuraeitha