Hi,
I've observed a rather strange behaviour while trying to mount two
identical copies of the same image to different mount points.
Each modification to one image is also performed in the second one.
Example:
dd if=/dev/sda? of=image1 bs=1M
cp image1 image2
mount -o loop image1 m1
mount -o loop
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Clemens Eisserer linuxhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've observed a rather strange behaviour while trying to mount two
identical copies of the same image to different mount points.
Each modification to one image is also performed in the second one.
Example:
dd
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:47:53AM +0200, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hi,
I've observed a rather strange behaviour while trying to mount two
identical copies of the same image to different mount points.
Each modification to one image is also performed in the second one.
Example:
dd
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:16:22 +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:47:53AM +0200, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hi,
I've observed a rather strange behaviour while trying to mount two
identical copies of the same image to different mount points.
Each modification to one image is also
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:22:07AM +, Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:16:22 +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:47:53AM +0200, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hi,
I've observed a rather strange behaviour while trying to mount two
identical copies of the
Instead of redirecting to a different block device, Btrfs could and
should refuse to mount an already-mounted superblock when the block
device doesn't match, somewhere in or below btrfs_mount. Registering
extra, distinct superblocks for an already mounted raid is a different
matter, but that
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:41:53AM +, Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
Instead of redirecting to a different block device, Btrfs could and
should refuse to mount an already-mounted superblock when the block
device doesn't match, somewhere in or below btrfs_mount. Registering
extra, distinct
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:22:12AM -0500, Kevin O'Kelley wrote:
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. Unfortunately this issue
is a deal killer for us. The ability to take very fast snapshots and
replicate them to another site is key for us. We just can't us Btrfs
with this setup. That's
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. Unfortunately this issue is a deal
killer for us. The ability to take very fast snapshots and replicate them to
another site is key for us. We just can't us Btrfs with this setup. That's
too bad. Good luck and thank you.
The issue we were
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. Unfortunately this issue is a deal
killer for us. The ability to take very fast snapshots and replicate them to
another site is key for us. We just can't us Btrfs with this setup. That's too
bad. Good luck and thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun
10 matches
Mail list logo
