Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755260AbYCMMgG (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:36:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752681AbYCMMfz (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:35:55 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.171]:46897 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752593AbYCMMfy (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:35:54 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=liXuREJDUDWsCpiSa/5obOtFCB5m8CZdLM91SX2LPz0Kuqe7okaAGvXu4x9yqbcDwMOIWomifB33mp0Cnvntq6nCq8hb/lWZRiDTgSMbCsXTwcbJ/beIoQ+hvuj31AQDac6hrzYXtJqjOAHMuY08EJUAcuA6J1CqgKEHdqgn6vk= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:35:53 +0000 From: "Duane Griffin" To: "Daniel Phillips" Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/6] ext3: do not modify data on-disk when mounting read-only filesystem Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Theodore Tso" , sct@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, adilger@clusterfs.com In-Reply-To: <200803122022.22814.phillips@phunq.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1204768754-29655-1-git-send-email-duaneg@dghda.com> <200803122022.22814.phillips@phunq.net> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 319dc5abfeabac6b Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1908 Lines: 46 On 13/03/2008, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Hi Duane, > > Thanks for doing this. Some perhaps not so obvious fallout from the bad > old way of doing things is that ddnap (zumastor) hits an issue in > replication. Since ddsnap allows journal replay on the downstream > server and also needs to have an unaltered snapshot to apply deltas > against, if we do not take special care, Ext3 will come along and > modify the downstream snapshot even when told not to. Our solution: > take two snapshots per replication cycle (pretty cheap) so that one can > be clean and the other can be stepped on at will by the journal replay. > Ugh. Ah, good to know, thanks. It looks like you folks are doing some interesting things there. > With your hack, we can eventually drop the double snapshot, provided no > other filesystem is similarly badly behaved. Excellent, I'm really pleased to hear that. > Re your page translation table: we already have a page translation > table, it is called the page cache. If you could figure out which file > (or metadata) each journal block belongs to, you could just load the > page table pages back in and presto, done. No need to replay the > journal at all, you are already back to journal+disk = consistent > state. Hmm, interesting. I'll have to have a think about that, thanks. > mapping. As it stands your solution seems well built, after a quick > readthrough. Nice looking code. I think you added about 250 lines > overall, so tight too. Thanks again. Thanks very much, I appreciate it! Cheers, Duane. -- "I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/