On Apr 24, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey >> >>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey >>> >>> Actually, I find this very surprising: >>> Question posted: >>> http://lopsa.org/pipermail/tech/2010-April/004356.html >> >> As the thread unfolds, it appears, although netapp may sometimes have >> some >> problems with "mv" directories ... This is evidence that appears to be >> weakening ... > > Nope. That discussion seems to be concluded now. And the netapp does not > have the problem that was suspected.
I do not recall reaching that conclusion. I think the definition of the problem is what you continue to miss. > The .snapshot directories do precisely what you would want them to do. > Which is: The .snapshot directory belonging to a parent contains a copy of > the filesystem as it looked at the time of the snapshot. But when you mv or > rename a subdirectory, then the .snapshot subdir of the subdirectory > correctly maps, to preserve the snapshots inside that directory. Agree, but the path is lost. > Make sense? Yes. The contents of the directory are there, but the full pathname does not follow because you changed a name in the path. Whether this is useful or not depends on whether you expect the path to be followed. It seems, the NetApp snapshot is a directory-level snapshot rather than a file system snapshot. I cannot see how to merge the two, so perhaps adding such a feature to ZFS could not leverage the file system snapshot? -- richard ZFS storage and performance consulting at http://www.RichardElling.com ZFS training on deduplication, NexentaStor, and NAS performance Las Vegas, April 29-30, 2010 http://nexenta-vegas.eventbrite.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
