On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:06:16AM -0500, Tim wrote: > > The problem though for our usage with NetApp was that we actually couldn't > > reserve enough space for snapshots. 50% of the pool was their maximum, and > > we're interested in running ten years worth of snapshots here, which could > > see us with a pool with just 10% of live data and 90% of the space taken up > > by snapshots. The NetApp approach was just too restrictive. > > There is not, and never has been a "50% of the pool maximum". That's also a > lie. If you want snapshots to take up 90% of the pool, ONTAP will GLADLY do > so. I've got a filer sitting in my lab and would be MORE than happy to post > the df output of a volume that has snapshots taking up 90% of the volume.
Even so, I don't think snapshots is really what he needs. It sounds a lot like what he really needs is an HFS like SAM. That's just my opinion though maybe. 10 years of snapshots sounds an awful lot like backups to me, and there are much better ways to handle that then with snapshots (on any filesystem). -brian -- "Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix." -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
