From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Subject: Re: LVM vs. Ext4 snapshots (was: [PATCH v1 00/30] Ext4 snapshots)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:18:46 +0100
Message-ID: <843433D5F73C864182AC91B8@nimrod.local>
References: <BANLkTimyBGfg4+ovGsiGqpCz345qVmU_7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTik20iYN4c9faKD9dzerehazWTwTFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTikKRuPu_NX49vr0w-XeN0ZnWo+9vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LFD.2.00.1106101101020.4502@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
 <20110610101142.GA10144@ubuntu>
 <BANLkTi=zjU3-FV3AVpYsknzKFgaS7byb_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110610150129.GA17585@ubuntu>
 <BANLkTikUZadpVJRcfX_MLMZ-p_G0bT_8uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110611074908.GC2517@ubuntu>
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lvm-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Joe Thornber <thornber@redhat.com>,
	"Amir G." <amir73il@users.sourceforge.net>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110611074908.GC2517@ubuntu>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org



--On 11 June 2011 08:49:08 +0100 Joe Thornber <thornber@redhat.com> wrote:

> I am also convinced multisnap wont be suitable for every use case.

I'm surprised by one thing ext 4 snapshots doesn't seem to do: I would have
thought the "killer feature" for doing snapshots in the fs rather than in
the block layer would be the ability to snapshot - and more importantly
roll back - only parts of the directory hierarchy.

(I've only read the URLs Amir sent, so apologies if I've missed this)

-- 
Alex Bligh