On Vie 21 Jun 2002 20:32, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Friday, June 21, 2002 at 18:00:19 (-0300), Martín Marqués wrote: ]
Other UNIX? If you could rely on it, why does Informix (and other
database servers, but this is the one I used) still use it's own FS to
write the database files?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 08:43:27PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
There are no writes to the filesystem at all while the snapshot is in
progress. The LVM-driver will block all data-access until it is
completed. If not, it wouldn't be a snapshot, would it?
I realize that -- but it doesn't
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 08:30:44PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
It should only require REDO.
No changes are made to the actual database-files until the transaction
is commited, written to the WAL and fsynced. At this point there is no
longer a need for UNDO.
Hmmm possibly. I'm not
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 09:01:17PM -0400, Michael H.Collins wrote:
I thought i just read that postgresql on ext3 outran oracle on raw
devices.
Yes, it's funny how all database engines are faster than all other
database engines, isn't it?
~Because there are tremendous performance advantages
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Patrick C. F. Ernzer wrote:
Hi,
on Fri Apr 19 Ulrik Sandberg posted about new templates, I fail to find
these labels in the CVS and in the archives.
Where can these templates be found?
Are there plans to include these in the examples directory at some point?
Sorry
unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why amanda uses a new tape on every night run?
Tapes are 40/80GB DLT1, and I dont understand why It dumps daily
incrementals to a new tape always, most of tapes are not even at 20%.
Any help? Is it any parameter I've missed out?
Thanks.
We upgraded(patched) irix on some of our sgi's and noticed core.pid files
started appearing in /. From the amanda logs it appears that amanda
cannot sigterm the xfsdumps and has resulted in SIGKILL. The kills are
apparently causing the xfsdumps to dump core. Is anyone else seeing this?
I'm
