From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ragnar =?iso-8859-15?Q?Kj=F8rstad?= Subject: Re: Snapshots a la NetApp? Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:49:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20030324124934.GD1318@vestdata.no> References: <200303221822.34401.phma@webjockey.net> <33433.10.20.2.148.1048390681.squirrel@alpha> <20030323111831.GF12916@marowsky-bree.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030323111831.GF12916@marowsky-bree.de> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: kend@xanoptix.com, reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 12:18:31PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > I'm just wondering if there's any development being done on NetApp-like > > snapshots. (This differs from LVM snapshots in that it's file-by-file, > > instead of volume based.) If not, has anyone given it any consideratio= n?=20 > > It would be a huge win for the RAID-in-a-box folks, and, speaking as a > > sysadmin, is something about which I dream frequently. >=20 > Well, implementing it at the LVM level isn't entirely bad though. What ki= nd of > advantage would have implementing at the filesystem level have? It would = need > to compensate at least the disadvantage of being less general. I think the main advantage of having it in the filesystem is that it makes the snapshots available to the users. This makes it possible for regular users to undelete / restore files without having to contact the sysadmin.=20 As for linux implementations of NetApp-like snapshots you should check out snapfs:=20 http://www.mountainviewdata.com/us/product/product_snap_1.html http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/snapfs/ http://sourcefrog.net/projects/snapfs/ --=20 Ragnar Kj=F8rstad Zet.no