From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/30] Ext4 snapshots Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:51:28 -0400 Message-ID: <52699.1307746288@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <1307459283-22130-1-git-send-email-amir73il@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1307746288_4421P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Lukas Czerner , Yongqiang Yang , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sandeen@redhat.com To: "Amir G." Return-path: Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:47122 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758193Ab1FJWwS (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:52:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:54:13 +0300." Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --==_Exmh_1307746288_4421P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:54:13 +0300, =22Amir G.=22 said: > Why do you keep saying 'backup only'? > There is a huge difference between having long lived snapshots, > like CTERA products have, and temporary snapshot for backup > purpose (for which LVM is adequate). I must have blinked somewhere - I'm not convinced LVM is even =22adequate= =22 for backup purposes. In particular, how does an LVM-level snapshot deal with= the =22metadata in memory=22 problem (basically the exact same problem as run= ning fsck on a disk partition that is already mounted)? --==_Exmh_1307746288_4421P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFN8p/wcC3lWbTT17ARAkG1AJ4tvLevzsXjKQ6ZoiEUYl8Xldy92gCeOS2V H2/Q0E6QhOIiWDjHRD2y14o= =ry9L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1307746288_4421P--