On 3/30/07, Atul Vidwansa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lets say I reorganized my zpools. Now there are 2 pools: Pool1: Production data, combination of binary and text files. Only few files change at a time. Average file sizes are around 1MB. Does it make sense to take zfs snapshots of the pool? Will the snapshot consume as much space as original zpool?
Depends on what you want to track/do. If you want file history and being able to do something like "svn info" to see what is out of date then vcs is a good choice. If you use want to be able to access backups and you want to build your own blob management system then snapshots probably are good enough. The above is a typical case for source control, and is likely to be easier this in the long run. Pool2:
Again, production data, mostly binary files. File sizes are huge ~10GB. These files change frequently. Does it make sense to snapshot it? Somehow I am reluctant to think about putting these files under something like CVS. As I mentioned before, I need only 1 version of the file at any time.
10Gb files are likely to much harder with something like subversion. With files these size I can't see you being interested in 'file diffs' and really being able to look at point in time shots. Plus If you say take daily backups, with say a 100Mb daily midnight changeset. Then want to remove the Mon to Sat's changesets. I don't think subversion will handle that well. The other good thing about zfs snapshots is low system load for a snap. If you have the disk space to do something like 5min snaps, using a vcs system will probably generate a reasonable amount of system load and operation completion time is not going to be constant time. Nicholas
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
