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
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
