On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:42:00PM -0600, Tim Haley wrote: > On 03/30/10 12:29 PM, Dan Price wrote: > >The example was slightly messed up, sorry; that caused misunderstanding. > >I'm worried about this situation: > > > > snapshot at 1 > > mv /myfiles/name1 /myfiles/name2 > > mkdir /myfiles/name1 > > snapshot at 2 > > > >So, I'm fairly sure that between the two snapshots both events are > >relevant. So the above might yield: > > > > + /myfiles/name1 > > R /myfiles/name1 -> /myfiles/name2
Ah, sure. > Apologies for not responding sooner, I've been playing a bit with > the code. Based on what I've been doing this morning, I believe it > will be possible to present the list in roughly chronological order. > The order originally was just by object number, so you could get > either of the outputs you show above. If you include the object number in the output then you can let the consumer figure it out. Increasing zfs diff's footprint to get it to sort its output correctly will decrease its performance, and the consumer might not care. (OTOH, a light-weight algorithm for properly sorting these output lines is fairly obvious, so maybe there's no reason to be concerned about performance.) Nico --
