On 01/22/2013 05:34 PM, Darren J Moffat wrote: > > > On 01/22/13 16:02, Sašo Kiselkov wrote: >> On 01/22/2013 05:00 PM, casper....@oracle.com wrote: >>>> Some vendors call this (and thins like it) "Thin Provisioning", I'd say >>>> it is more "accurate communication between 'disk' and filesystem" about >>>> in use blocks. >>> >>> In some cases, users of disks are charged by bytes in use; when not >>> using >>> SCSI UNMAP, a set of disks used for a zpool will in the end be >>> charged for >>> the whole reservation; this becomes costly when your standard usage is >>> much less than your peak usage. >>> >>> Thin provisioning can now be used for zpools as long as the underlying >>> LUNs have support for SCSI UNMAP >> >> Looks like an interesting technical solution to a political problem :D > > There is also a technical problem too: because if you can't inform the > backing store that you no longer need the blocks it can't free them > either so they get stuck in snapshots unnecessarily.
Yes, I understand the technical merit of the solution. I'm just amused that a noticeable side-effect is lower licensing costs (by that I don't of course mean that the issue is unimportant, just that I find it interesting what the world has come to) - I'm not trying to ridicule. Cheers, -- Saso _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
