[Discuss] lvm snapshot cloning

[blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey)]

> From: markw at mohawksoft.com [mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com]
> 
> >> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> >> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of
> >>
> >> Other systems, chain snapshots so that at any time, only one snapshot
is
> >> receiving COW data, and the subsequent snapshots only forward
> reference.
> >
> > Also, other systems don't make you pre-allocate disk space for snapshot
> > usage, and other systems don't automatically destroy your snapshot if
you
> > run out of pre-allocated space.  LVM snapshot is crap compared to other
> > systems - but if you want to make a single snapshot so you can dump or
tar
> > your ext3/4 filesystem in a consistent state or something, then it's
good
> > for that purpose.  And not much else.
> 
> As I have said before, that, most of the time, copying the WHOLE volume is
> not a practical option.

I don't know why you would mention that.  How does it relate to anything
that was said above?


> > What application are you intending to use it for?  Does it need to be
> > linux?
> 
> Well, not technically, but from a cost/benefit sort of analysis, I don't
> know of a better platform.

You could use openindiana, or nexenta, or freebsd.  These are stable free
platforms (and commercial) that do zfs.


> > In many situations, even if you're using linux, it might be ok to run
> > either
> > user-mode ZFS or ZFS on a separate system connected via NFS or ISCSI or
> > whatever.
> 
> Still concerned over support and Oracle. When that is ironed out, I'll be
> able to reconsider it.

What specifically is the concern?  Cost of Oracle support?  Quality of
support?  (Compared to redhat support, which is ... on par with oracle
support)...  What specifically is the concern?