I''m writing a couple scripts to automate backups and snapshots, and I''m finding myself cringing every time I call ''zfs destroy'' to get rid of a snapshot, because a small typo could take out the original filesystem instead of a snapshot. Would it be possible to add a flag (maybe -t <type>) to zfs destroy to limit its destructive power? Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20071023/bfdb590d/attachment.html>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:55:58AM -0700, Scott Laird wrote:> I''m writing a couple scripts to automate backups and snapshots, and I''m > finding myself cringing every time I call ''zfs destroy'' to get rid of a > snapshot, because a small typo could take out the original filesystem > instead of a snapshot. Would it be possible to add a flag (maybe -t <type>) > to zfs destroy to limit its destructive power?It''s been discussed (more than once) before. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=121336 While I thought the general tone from that thread was that such a change wouldn''t be obnoxious, I didn''t see if an RFE was filed or any status of such. -- Darren Dunham ddunham at taos.com Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, A Darren Dunham wrote:> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:55:58AM -0700, Scott Laird wrote: >> I''m writing a couple scripts to automate backups and snapshots, and I''m >> finding myself cringing every time I call ''zfs destroy'' to get rid of a >> snapshot, because a small typo could take out the original filesystem >> instead of a snapshot. Would it be possible to add a flag (maybe -t <type>) >> to zfs destroy to limit its destructive power? > > It''s been discussed (more than once) before. > > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=121336 > > While I thought the general tone from that thread was that such a change > wouldn''t be obnoxious, I didn''t see if an RFE was filed or any status of > such.I see that CR 6577055 is somewhat similar, but I can''t find any RFE that talks about adding a filter that Scott mentioned (or that was brought up in the thread Darren pointed to). I''ll go ahead and write up an RFE. Regards, markm