Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:06:50 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Sven Willenberger <sven@dmv.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi-machine mirroring choices Message-ID: <487CBD0A.6050207@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080715145426.GA31340@eos.sc1.parodius.com> References: <1216130834.27608.27.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> <20080715145426.GA31340@eos.sc1.parodius.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > Compared to UFS2 snapshots (e.g. dump -L or mksnap_ffs), ZFS snapshots > are fantastic. The two main positives for me were: > > 1) ZFS snapshots take significantly less time to create; I'm talking > seconds or minutes vs. 30-45 minutes. I also remember receiving mail > from someone (on -hackers? I can't remember -- let me know and I can > dig through my mail archives for the specific mail/details) stating > something along the lines of "over time, yes, UFS2 snapshots take > longer and longer, it's a known design problem". > > 2) ZFS snapshots, when created, do not cause the system to more or less > deadlock until the snapshot is generated; you can continue to use the > system during the time the snapshot is being generated. While with > UFS2, dump -L and mksnap_ffs will surely disappoint you. "a known design problem" in the sense of "intentional", yes. They were written to support bg fsck, not as a lightweight filesystem feature for general use. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?487CBD0A.6050207>