[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/25/2008 10:34:41 AM:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 10:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > That snap schedule seems reasonable to me. Relate to the cleanup part > > of the doc linked, do you know the rational for killing off the most recent > > (15 minute and hourly) snaps vs the oldest (monthly) first? > > It's a tough call (which thankfully I didn't have to make). I'm not sure > there was a rationale, other than the guys who were implementing it > messing about on their desktops finding out where /they/ tended to get > the most savings. > > Really, it all depends on how volatile your filesystems are, where the > best place to retrieve data from. I suspect it'll take more real-user > testing to determine what's the best balance between data availability > and disk space. Thanks Tim. It seems like a very cool project. Maybe there will be more push to show more block born/dead/held stats from a public ZFS API when stuff like this gets rolling. That should allow more of an educated guess as to what snapshots are holding what data. -Wade _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
