> Apparently (and I'm not sure where this is documented), you can 'rmdir'
> a snapshot to remove it (in some cases).
Ok. That would be useful, though I also don't like that it breaks
standard rmdir semantics.
In any case it does not work in my case - but that was on FreeBSD.
--
/ Peter Schuller
> Rather than rehash this, again, from scratch. Refer to a previous
> rehashing.
> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=15363&;
I agree that adding a -f requirement and/or an interactive prompt is not
a good solution. As has already been pointed out, my suggestion is
differen
Peter Schuller wrote:
Hello,
with the advent of clones and snapshots, one will of course start
creating them. Which also means destroying them.
Am I the only one who is *extremely* nervous about doing "zfs destroy
some/[EMAIL PROTECTED]"?
This goes bot manually and automatically in a script. I
Hey, that's nothing, I had one zfs file system, then I cloned it, so I
thought that I had two separate file systems. then I was making snaps
of both of them. Then later on I decided I did not need original file
system with its snaps. So I did recursively remove it, all of a sudden
I got a message
> Rather than rehash this, again, from scratch. Refer to a previous rehashing.
> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=15363&;
That thread really did quickly move to arguments about confirmations and
their usefulness or annoyance.
I think the idea presented of adding someth
Rather than rehash this, again, from scratch. Refer to a previous rehashing.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=15363&;
-- richard
Peter Schuller wrote:
Hello,
with the advent of clones and snapshots, one will of course start
creating them. Which also means destroy
> with the advent of clones and snapshots, one will of course start
> creating them. Which also means destroying them.
>
> Am I the only one who is *extremely* nervous about doing "zfs destroy
> some/[EMAIL PROTECTED]"?
>
> This goes bot manually and automatically in a script. I am very paranoid
> What about having dedicated commands "destroysnapshot", "destroyclone",
> or "remove" (less dangerous variant of "destroy") that will never do
> anything but remove snapshots or clones? Alternatively having something
> along the lines of "zfs destroy --nofs" or "zfs destroy --safe".
Another opti
Hello,
with the advent of clones and snapshots, one will of course start
creating them. Which also means destroying them.
Am I the only one who is *extremely* nervous about doing "zfs destroy
some/[EMAIL PROTECTED]"?
This goes bot manually and automatically in a script. I am very paranoid
about
