On Monday 21 July 2008 14:37, Will Murnane wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 17:22, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But that is not my point. My point is that there is no way to recover
> > the volume space used by my example file short of deleting both
On Sunday 20 July 2008 21:38, Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
> > On Monday 14 July 2008 08:29, Akhilesh Mritunjai
> > wrote:
> > > Writable snapshots are called "clones" in zfs. So
> > infact, you have
> > > trees of snapshots and clones. Snapshots are
> > read-only, and you can
> > > create any number
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:29, Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
> Writable snapshots are called "clones" in zfs. So infact, you have
> trees of snapshots and clones. Snapshots are read-only, and you can
> create any number of "writable" clones from a snapshot, that behave
> like a normal filesystem and you
Nit: you meant 2^N + 1 I believe.
Daniel
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:29, Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
> Still reading, but would like to correct one point.
>
> > * It would seem that ZFS is deeply wedded to the
> > concept of a single,
> > linear chain of snapshots. No snapshots of
> > snapshots, apparently.
> >http://blogs.sun.com/ahren
Greetings, filesystem algorithm fans.
The recent, detailed description of the versioned pointer method for
volume versioning is here:
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2008-07/msg02663.html
I apologize humbly for the typo in the first sentence. Today's revision
of the proof of
