1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Am 27.05.2014 13:25, schrieb Mick: |
5 |
|
6 |
> I recall that zfs needed a lot of RAM >= 8M, is it the same with |
7 |
> BTRFS? |
8 |
|
9 |
I assume you mean ">8GB" ? |
10 |
|
11 |
As far as I know and researched: no, btrfs is less memory hungry and |
12 |
was designed to even work fine on small devices like phones or so. |
13 |
|
14 |
It depends if you use features like deduplication which is very |
15 |
ressource-intensive ... |
16 |
|
17 |
> Also how big is each snapshot of / and why are these necessary on |
18 |
> an hourly basiszfs ? |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
Snapshots don't have any size initially. |
22 |
|
23 |
With filesystems like btrfs and zfs a snapshot is more of a pointer to |
24 |
a specific status of the whole fs-tree in time and in consequence also |
25 |
happens instantly. The size of the snapshot ... oh, Rich already |
26 |
replied as well :-) |
27 |
|
28 |
Stefan |
29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
31 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
32 |
|
33 |
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJThHlUAAoJEClcuD1V0PzmApcP/RCBeASWCqKOxDhtyJ7Pj+c3 |
34 |
LgDObKZ23svRCU2qiwF04e1enJTUF+FcaL/KyB4690x1EATo+0ciYOajzgIRng16 |
35 |
24bGB/ZCRhE4uZ99aVLymAslhBXUyILcZ+AqaJCM2XL72Ttp7gqB/PW0bJWOgQ0Y |
36 |
wC4FWtzDJN6vm2VfC3gDMhdUaoysWuCEQqhppJe5RpSbOP3kk9PzXiFLPpJkKs2V |
37 |
xglvGDy5SCu79APTqUrDRZtHCQBpLTkMDBQr9ytdtVLPDDx6WyG0BZ351tp2fzMp |
38 |
CMUy4T1z417l+TgDMZ2iYBh1+Ctnqkr+SfLdlkkF+0AJfpFUpNjztDHyhV8Muzan |
39 |
AQdEDW1ccXc/cSR62gbf8+Y+Aj2QTBPImXtHNHQHPRiszVgJM7E5ufnxrUm+1qT9 |
40 |
aWM+SSLbDjtvmRBSOExNawonprMT44Vhqc4j0UfLhbLsLZfVbUghfczqOr5pDD6l |
41 |
32dIkXRtT/zkR/tDpWX5n6ZotIlnAuVh7xIe8zID3KTLXdcuM2sP3UDFUGd4FqPU |
42 |
5ovfAIhi133BHpdz7FHmTbR9if7iGeF+mWFfCt/cWYQY9vw3yLmUaJg3pxP0gKvC |
43 |
C3SXt8V30ubWKglrCXd0a3eqm0fbonFaACdB3eyeQgi5S4FBYHIATW8XDGP+/VSG |
44 |
t81Av1TKapRTzHgQF35U |
45 |
=lMUl |
46 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |