On 4/6/06, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you could sync the disks and guarantee that it won't start writing > again before you complete the flash, that would be ok, but I would not > wish to depend on Divine Providence to protect the consistency of the > backup.
What we're missing is the ability to flash a set of mini disks as one atomic action. If you just go over the disks and flash them one at a time, in theory there is the risk of inconsistent backups. If you really want you can use LVM to suspend all writes and make all your flash copy actions, and then resume writing to disk again. I am not sure the risk of inconsistent data in a backup is as real as some want you to believe. In a former life I worked on a backup strategy that provided a way to group disks to assure consistent backup copies. When asking application owners wether they needed this, I explained the consequence would also be that if one disk of such a group was lost and needed recovery, we would also restore the other disks in that group to assure the required consistency... And indeed, turned out people rarely had this desire and would rather re-arrange their data to have related stuff on the same disk. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software, Inc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
