[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/12/2007 06:28:16 PM: > > 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 :-) > File Systems in ZFS may be cheap (as far as zfs overhead) -- but they are not "free". =) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
