Why not restore the volume (restores to RW), replicate it (same server
and partition) and then remove the RW?
Mount the resulting readonly explicitly -- i.e. be sure to include the
.readonly suffix in the fs mkm
Works for me.
Kim
Steve Simmons wrote:
On Jul 18, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Carsten Schulz-Key wrote:
The RW and RO volumes share the same inodes (for the data part) as
long as
they're on the same partition and the RW volume has not been altered
since
releasing the volume. The space needed for the second volume header
should be
neglegtable. That's as far as I know -- please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're correct; I'd not thought of putting them in the /vice partition.
leaves two
volumes rather than one that we have to remove later, and the savvy
user could still mount the r/w original.
yeah, but you were going to delete it anyways, weren't you? So the
worst case
would be that the users mount the RW volume, delete the data and fill
it up
with other data -- which they can not rely on since it will be
deleted w/o
further notice a couple of days later.
That's exactly the problem. Somebody sees they suddenly have twice as
much space and starts using it - then gets quite upset when their new
files all disappear. We'd like to have a mechanism that doesn't permit
the user to go down that road. A read-only volume solves that, but we
should be able to distinguish between a volume that is a standalone
read-only and an abandoned replica. That, essentially, is my feature
request.
Best,
Steve
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
