On 12-Apr-07, at 7:42 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On April 12, 2007 7:10:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 3:40 PM, Sean Liu wrote:
In good'ol days if you are moving file/files in the same UFS, it's
a snap as the moving is only a change in dir/inode level.
Since zfs encourages creating more filesystems instead of dirs,
moving can be an issue - data must be moved around instead of being
pointed to, so it takes a long time if the size is big, even though
the data is still in the same zpool.
Any workaround for this?
Think hard about usage patterns when you lay out your filesystems?
Nice snappy answer :-), but in a lot of cases, you might not know what
the usage will be. ...
Now, back to the question, while zfs ENCOURAGES creating more
filesystems,
you don't have to do that. In fact in some cases it's a distinct
disadvantage. So I'd say a workaround would be to just not create
multiple filesystems! If you don't need them, don't do it. You need
to ask yourself, what is the REASON that you would have different
filesystems, and if you don't have any other than "well that's the zfs
way", then stick with fewer filesystems.
Which is just the long way of putting it. The OP seems to have found
a way to use a new feature to make things -worse- for his particular
application. Not the first time in history that's happened, I'm sure :-)
--T
If you do find it useful and do create multiple filesystems, then it's
the same as with UFS and you must somehow copy the data. ...
-frank
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
