On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Colin Raven co...@clearcutnetworks.com wrote:
If snapshots reside within the confines of the pool, are you saying that
dedup will also count what's contained inside the snapshots? I'm not sure
why, but that thought is vaguely disturbing on some level.
Sure, why
Brandon High wrote:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Colin Raven co...@clearcutnetworks.com wrote:
If snapshots reside within the confines of the pool, are you saying that
dedup will also count what's contained inside the snapshots? I'm not sure
why, but that thought is vaguely disturbing on
Wait...whoah, hold
on.brIf snapshots reside within the confines of the
pool, are you saying that dedup will also count
what#39;s contained inside the snapshots? I#39;m
not sure why, but that thought is vaguely disturbing
on some level.
brThen again (not sure how gurus feel on this
point)
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 16:23, Nick nick.couch...@seakr.com wrote:
IMHO, snapshots are not a replacement for backups. Backups should
definitely reside outside the system, so that if you lose your entire array,
SAN, controller, etc., you can recover somewhere else. Snapshots, on the
other
The (one and only) point that I was making was that - like backups -
snapshots should be kept elsewhere whether by using zfs-send, or zipping
up the whole shebang and ssh'ing it someplaceelsewhere meaning beyond
the pool. Rolling 15 minute and hourly snapshotsno, they stay local, but
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 05:25, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
Stacy Maydew wrote:
The commands zpool list and zpool get dedup pool both show a ratio
of 1.10.
So thanks for that answer. I'm a bit confused though if the dedup is
applied per zfs filesystem, not zpool, why can I only see
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Colin Raven wrote:
There is no original, there is no copy. There is one block with reference
counters.
- Fred can rm his file (because clearly it isn't a file, it's a filename and
that's all)
- result: the reference count is decremented by one - the data remains on disk.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 17:20, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Colin Raven wrote:
There is no original, there is no copy. There is one block with reference
counters.
- Fred can rm his file (because clearly it isn't a file, it's a filename
and
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Colin Raven wrote:
Wait...whoah, hold on.
If snapshots reside within the confines of the pool, are you saying that dedup
will also count
what's contained inside the snapshots? I'm not sure why, but that thought is
vaguely disturbing on
some level.
Yes, of course. Any
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Colin Raven wrote:
There is no original, there is no copy. There is one block with reference
counters.
- Fred can rm his file (because clearly it isn't a file, it's a filename
and
On 19-Dec-09, at 4:35 AM, Colin Raven wrote:
...
There is no original, there is no copy. There is one block with
reference counters.
Many blocks, potentially shared, make up a de-dup'd file. Not sure
why you write one here.
- Fred can rm his file (because clearly it isn't a file,
On 19-Dec-09, at 11:34 AM, Colin Raven wrote:
...
Wait...whoah, hold on.
If snapshots reside within the confines of the pool, are you saying
that dedup will also count what's contained inside the snapshots?
Snapshots themselves are only references, so yes.
I'm not sure why, but that
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 19:08, Toby Thain t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
On 19-Dec-09, at 11:34 AM, Colin Raven wrote
Then again (not sure how gurus feel on this point) but I have this probably
naive and foolish belief that snapshots (mostly) oughtta reside on a
separate physical
On 19-Dec-09, at 2:01 PM, Colin Raven wrote:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 19:08, Toby Thain
t...@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
On 19-Dec-09, at 11:34 AM, Colin Raven wrote
Then again (not sure how gurus feel on this point) but I have this
probably naive and foolish belief that snapshots
On 19-Dec-09, at 11:34 AM, Colin Raven wrote:
...
When we are children, we are told that sharing is good. In the
case or references, sharing is usually good, but if there is a huge
amount of sharing, then it can take longer to delete a set of files
since the mutual references create a
Stacy Maydew wrote:
The commands zpool list and zpool get dedup pool both show a ratio of 1.10.
So thanks for that answer. I'm a bit confused though if the dedup is applied
per zfs filesystem, not zpool, why can I only see the dedup on a per pool basis
rather than for each zfs filesystem?
I'm trying to see if zfs dedupe is effective on our datasets, but I'm having a
hard time figuring out how to measure the space saved.
When I sent one backup set to the filesystem, the usage reported by zfs list
and zfs get used my zfs are the expected values based on the data size.
When I
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Stacy Maydew stacy.may...@sun.com wrote:
I'm trying to see if zfs dedupe is effective on our datasets, but I'm having
a hard time figuring out how to measure the space saved.
When I sent one backup set to the filesystem, the usage reported by zfs
list and
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Stacy Maydew stacy.may...@sun.com wrote:
When I sent one backup set to the filesystem, the usage reported by zfs
list and zfs get used my zfs are the expected values based on the data
size.
When I store a second copy, which should dedupe entirely, the zfs
The commands zpool list and zpool get dedup pool both show a ratio of
1.10.
So thanks for that answer. I'm a bit confused though if the dedup is applied
per zfs filesystem, not zpool, why can I only see the dedup on a per pool basis
rather than for each zfs filesystem?
Seems to me there
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:30:29PM -0800, Stacy Maydew wrote:
So thanks for that answer. I'm a bit confused though if the dedup is
applied per zfs filesystem, not zpool, why can I only see the dedup on
a per pool basis rather than for each zfs filesystem?
Seems to me there should be a way to
21 matches
Mail list logo
