Re: File system snapshopts: how valuable?

Kelly Setzer (setzer@telalink.net)
Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:53:15 -0600


(not having a deeper understanding of filesystem issues, I
hope my comments are at least inspirational, if not useful).

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Plumb <colin@nyx.net>
To: pjb1008@cam.ac.uk <pjb1008@cam.ac.uk>

>Peter Benie <pjb1008@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Another nice feature of the NetApp FAServer is the fact
that, modulo
>> filesystem bugs, it does not need fscking. A new
filesystem design
>

>having the server down for many many hours while running
fsck after a
>power failure is unpleasant.
>
[...]
>The feature that really fights with snapshots is the
ability to run
>a disk optimizer, which also includes the ability to resize
file
>systems at run time, which is also a useful feature.

In general, frequent writes present problems for
"intelligent" filesystems (e.g., calculating parity for
RAID-5, or having uncommitted writes stack up with a logging
fs). Since you mentioned WAFL, I assume you are aware that
snapshots can be turned off. The ability to turn features
off is a rather important feature in itself, especially in
the situations you mention (news server, disk optimizer). I
would hope that the additions you have proposed could be
enabled independently of one another (and independent of
other things like e2compr and RAID).

The linux community would benefit highly from the features
you have described. Coupled with software RAID, it'd be
pretty hard to beat.

You know, the netapp OS has a filesystem checker (named
'wack' - go figure). I wonder if the snapshots are
effectively damaged after running wack...?

regards,
Kelly

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu