On 8/24/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:21:33PM -0700, Joe Little wrote:
> well, by deleting my 4-hourlies I reclaimed most of the data. To
> answer some of the questions, its about 15 filesystems (decendents
> included). I'm aware of the space used by snapshots overlapping. I was
> looking at the total space (zpool iostat reports) and seeing the diff
> per day. The 400MB/day was be inspection and by looking at our nominal
> growth on a netapp.
>
> It would appear that if one days many snapshots, there is an initial
> quick growth in disk usage, but once those snapshot meet their
> retention level (say 12), the growth would appear to match our typical
> 400MB/day. Time will prove this one way or other. By simply getting
> rid of hourly snapshots and collapsing to dailies for two days worth,
> I reverted to only ~1-2GB total growth, which is much more in line
> with expectations.
OK, so sounds like there is no problem here, right? You were taking
snapshots every 4 hours, which took up no more space than was needed,
but more than you would like (and more than daily snapshots). Using
daily snapshots the space usage is in line with daily snapshots on
NetApp.
> For various reasons, I can't post the zfs list type results as yet.
> I'll need to get the ok for that first.. Sorry..
It sounds like there is no problem here so no need to post the output.
--matt
Hi. The NetApp had the same snapshot schedule and didn't show the same
growth in storage behind the base use. Again, I do suspect that ZFS
snapshots (or perhaps the metadata) may be somewhat fatter over all
than one would expect. Perhaps its the difference of default block
sizing. It was an alarming rate until I suspected it was all in the
snapshot overhead and reduced the overall number.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
