On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 02:13:42PM +0200, Arno Lehmann wrote: > Hi all, > > Am 10.05.2026 um 14:41 schrieb [email protected]: > > On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 01:54:10PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Jochen Spieker wrote: > > > > > I was always under the impression that an LVM snapshot is not better > > > > > than an unclean filesystem, like for example after a power loss. But > > > > > this 20 year old document proved me wrong: > > > > > https://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/snapshotintro.html > > > > > > [email protected]: > > > > Is there any reference for that? AFAIK LVM doesn't "know" about the > > > > underlying file system (if there is any). > > > In a later mail: > > > > This sounds very hypothetical: how should LVM that there is a file > > > > system /at all/ on the logical volume being snapshotted? How that > > > > this file system is mounted? > > > > > > Obviously one can inquire the list of mounted filesystems and their > > > storage devices [...] > > > > ...then fsfreeze > > > > Woah, Thomas: you definitely rock :) > > > > Just what we all needed. > > Do we? On one of my debian systems, man fsfreeze gets me > > DESCRIPTION > fsfreeze suspends or resumes access to a filesystem. [...] > fsfreeze is unnecessary for device-mapper devices. The device- > mapper (and LVM) automatically freezes a filesystem on the device [...]
Thanks. To be fair, my "what we needed" was more in the sense of someone actually looking up stuff instead of speculating (as was all the rest of us doing, me included :) In that sense, also thank you, for completing that. Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
