> "tf" == Tim Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
tf> anyone else have an opinion?
keep the number of snapshots small until the performacne problems with
booting/importing/scrubbing while having lots of snapshots are
resolved.
pgp4Qi9Dyk7O4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi Wade,
We considered a number of approaches including just deleting oldest snapshots
first
and progressing through to the newest snapshots.
When you consider the default snapshot schedules we are going to use, the
model is that snapshots get thinned out over time. So in situations were disk
s
Wade,
> that order. Also I guess user case in my mind would leave a desktop user
> more likely to need access to a few minutes, hours or days ago then 12
> months ago.
You are guessing that, but I am a desktop user who'd rather like the contrary.
I think Tim has already stated that he would not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/25/2008 10:34:41 AM:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 10:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > That snap schedule seems reasonable to me. Relate to the cleanup
part
> > of the doc linked, do you know the rational for killing off the most
recent
> > (15 minute and hour
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 10:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That snap schedule seems reasonable to me. Relate to the cleanup part
> of the doc linked, do you know the rational for killing off the most recent
> (15 minute and hourly) snaps vs the oldest (monthly) first?
It's a tough call (w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/25/2008 05:30:04 AM:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 12:07 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Nils Goroll wrote:
>
> > Storage Checkpoints in Veritas software has this feature (removing
> > the oldest checkpoint in case of 100% fil
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 12:52 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> nobody is going to assume user's intentions. Just give us
> snapshot-related property which we can set to on/off and everybody
> can setup zfs according to his/her needs.
Then that'll be there in nv_100. Enjoy!
cheers,
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:30:04AM +0100, Tim Foster wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 12:07 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Nils Goroll wrote:
>
> > Storage Checkpoints in Veritas software has this feature (removing
> > the oldest checkpoint in case of 1
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 12:07 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Nils Goroll wrote:
> Storage Checkpoints in Veritas software has this feature (removing
> the oldest checkpoint in case of 100% filesystem usage) by default.
> Why not add such option to ZFS ?
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Nils Goroll wrote:
> > Before re-inventing the wheel, does anyone have any nice shell script to do
> > this
> > kind of thing (to be executed from cron)?
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/zfs_automatic_snapshots_0_10
> http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/z
> Before re-inventing the wheel, does anyone have any nice shell script to do
> this
> kind of thing (to be executed from cron)?
http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/zfs_automatic_snapshots_0_10
http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/zfs_automatic_snapshots_0_11
_
Hi,
I'm building a new ZFS fileserver for our lab and I'd like to have these
features:
- take a snapshot of users' home directories every N minutes (N is 5 or 10)
- remove all old snapshots, keep just these:
- all snapshots made during last H hours (H=24)
- keep one snapshot per day (e.g.
12 matches
Mail list logo
