Dear god. Thanks Tim, that's useful info.
The sales rep we spoke to was really trying quite hard to persuade us that
NetApp was the best solution for us, they spent a couple of months working with
us, but ultimately we were put off because of those 'limitations'. They knew
full well that those were two of our major concerns, but never had an answer
for us. That was a big part of the reason we started seriously looking into
ZFS instead of NetApp.
If nothing else at least I now know a firm to avoid when buying NetApp...
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:06:16 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] EMC - top of the table for efficiency, how well
would ZFS do?
CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ross Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey Tim,
I'll admit I just quoted the blog without checking, I seem to remember the
sales rep I spoke to recommending putting aside 20-50% of my disk for
snapshots. Compared to ZFS where I don't need to reserve any space it feels
very old fashioned. With ZFS, snapshots just take up as much space as I want
them to.
Your sales rep was an idiot then. Snapshot reserve isn't required at all. It
isn't necessary to take snapshots. It's simply a portion of space out of a
volume that can only be used for snapshots, live data cannot enter into this
space. Snapshots, however, can exist on a volume with no snapshot reserve.
They are in no way limited to the "snapshot reserve" you've set. Snapshot
reserve is a guaranteed minimum amount of space out of a volume. You can set
it 90% as you mention below, and it will work just fine.
ZFS is no different than NetApp when it comes to snapshots. I suggest until
you have a basic understanding of how NetApp software works, not making ANY
definitive statements about them. You're sounding like a fool and/or someone
working for one of their competitors.
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.
Ross
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.
--Tim
_________________________________________________________________
Win a voice over part with Kung Fu Panda & Live Search and 100’s of Kung Fu
Panda prizes to win with Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571439/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
