zfs code - May 2007 - zfs_rollback(zfs_handle_t *zhp, zfs_handle_t *snap, int flag)

Hi all!

I see that the zfs_rollback(zfs_handle_t *zhp, zfs_handle_t *snap, int  
flag) function destroys the more recent snapshots no matter what.
Does anybody know a good way to avoid this if there are newer snapshots  
than the one specified? What is the meaning of the flag parameter in this  
function?

Best regards,
Lars-Erik



-- 
Using Opera''s revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 5/11/07, Lars-Erik Bj?rk <Lars-Erik.Bjork at sun.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> I see that the zfs_rollback(zfs_handle_t *zhp, zfs_handle_t *snap, int
> flag) function destroys the more recent snapshots no matter what.
> Does anybody know a good way to avoid this if there are newer snapshots
> than the one specified? What is the meaning of the flag parameter in this
> function?

you can copy/rsync from the previous snapshot to the current files without
destroying snapshots, or you can clone the snapshot and work from that,
though rollback is probably faster.


Best regards,
> Lars-Erik
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera''s revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-code mailing list
> zfs-code at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-code/attachments/20070511/bc641aa7/attachment.html>

Is there an easy way to check if more recent snapshots exists? If you do a  
rollback using the CLI you''ll be told to use the -r option in order to
rollback to older snapshots. I was hoping there was a similar library  
routine that would just result in an error if I tried to rollback to an  
older snapshot.


On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:21:54 +0200, James Dickens <jamesd.wi at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 5/11/07, Lars-Erik Bj?rk <Lars-Erik.Bjork at sun.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I see that the zfs_rollback(zfs_handle_t *zhp, zfs_handle_t *snap, int
>> flag) function destroys the more recent snapshots no matter what.
>> Does anybody know a good way to avoid this if there are newer snapshots
>> than the one specified? What is the meaning of the flag parameter in  
>> this
>> function?
>
>
> you can copy/rsync from the previous snapshot to the current files  
> without
> destroying snapshots, or you can clone the snapshot and work from that,
> though rollback is probably faster.
>
>
> Best regards,
>> Lars-Erik
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Using Opera''s revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
>> _______________________________________________
>> zfs-code mailing list
>> zfs-code at opensolaris.org
>> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code
>>


-- 
Using Opera''s revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

You may want to check out ''rollback_check''.  It''s a
callback function
called by zfs_iter_children in zfs_do_rollback to tell if more recent  
snapshots exist than the one specified. It returns an error (providing  
you didn''t use the ''-r'' flag) if there are more
recent snapshots.

Noel

On May 11, 2007, at 8:36 AM, Lars-Erik Bj?rk wrote:
> Is there an easy way to check if more recent snapshots exists? If  
> you do a rollback using the CLI you''ll be told to use the -r
option
> in order to rollback to older snapshots. I was hoping there was a  
> similar library routine that would just result in an error if I  
> tried to rollback to an older snapshot.
>
>
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:21:54 +0200, James Dickens  
> <jamesd.wi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/07, Lars-Erik Bj?rk <Lars-Erik.Bjork at sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I see that the zfs_rollback(zfs_handle_t *zhp, zfs_handle_t *snap,
>>> int
>>> flag) function destroys the more recent snapshots no matter what.
>>> Does anybody know a good way to avoid this if there are newer  
>>> snapshots
>>> than the one specified? What is the meaning of the flag parameter  
>>> in this
>>> function?
>>
>>
>> you can copy/rsync from the previous snapshot to the current files  
>> without
>> destroying snapshots, or you can clone the snapshot and work from  
>> that,
>> though rollback is probably faster.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>> Lars-Erik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Using Opera''s revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/
>>> mail/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> zfs-code mailing list
>>> zfs-code at opensolaris.org
>>> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code
>>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Using Opera''s revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-code mailing list
> zfs-code at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-code