Well. > ZFS isn't copy-on-write in the same way that things > like ufssnap are. > ufssnap is copy-on-write in that when you write > something, it copies out > the old data and writes it somewhere else (the > backing store). ZFS doesn't > need to do this - it simply writes the new data to a > new location, and > leaves the old data where it is. If that old data is > needed for a snapshot > then it's left unchanged, if it's not then it's > freed.
We need to think ZFS as ZFS, and not as a new filesystem ! I mean, the whole concept is different. So. What could be the best architecture ? With UFS, I used to have separate metadevices/LUNs for each application. With ZFS, I thought it would be nice to use a separate pool for each application. But, it means multiply snapshot backing-store OR dynamically remove/add this space/LUN to pool where we need to do backups. Knowing that I can't serialize backups, my only option is to multiply reservation for backing-stores. Uh ! Another option would be to create a single pool and put all apllications in it...don't think this as a solution. Any suggestion ? This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
