Malcolm Beattie writes:
> Andreas Dilger writes:
> > PS - I used to think shrinking a filesystem online was useful, but there
> > are a huge amount of problems with this and very few real-life
> > benefits, as long as you can at least do offline shrinking. With
> > proper LVM
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 02:23:27AM +0200, Edgar Toernig wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > > It's going to be marked 'd', it's a directory, not a file.
> > > >
> > > > Aha. So you lose the S_ISCHR/BLK attribute.
> > >
> > > Readdir fills in a
Linus writes:
> There are some strong arguments that we should have filesystem
> "backdoors" for maintenance purposes, including backup.
>
> You can, of course, so parts of this on a LVM level, and doing backups
> with "disk snapshots" may be a valid approach. However, even that is
> debatable:
Jeff writes:
> Here's a dumb question, and I apologize if I am questioning computer
> science dogma...
>
> Why are LVM and EVMS(competing LVM project) needed at all?
>
> Surely the same can be accomplished with
> * md
> * snapshot blkdev (attached in previous e-mail)
> * giving partitions and
Peter Braam writes:
> On Tue, 22 May 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Actually, the LVM snapshot
> > interface has (optional) hooks into the filesystem to ensure that it
> > is consistent at the time the snapshot is created.
>
> File system journal recovery can corrupt a snapshot, because it
Peter Braam writes:
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Actually, the LVM snapshot
interface has (optional) hooks into the filesystem to ensure that it
is consistent at the time the snapshot is created.
File system journal recovery can corrupt a snapshot, because it copies
data
Jeff writes:
Here's a dumb question, and I apologize if I am questioning computer
science dogma...
Why are LVM and EVMS(competing LVM project) needed at all?
Surely the same can be accomplished with
* md
* snapshot blkdev (attached in previous e-mail)
* giving partitions and blkdevs
Linus writes:
There are some strong arguments that we should have filesystem
backdoors for maintenance purposes, including backup.
You can, of course, so parts of this on a LVM level, and doing backups
with disk snapshots may be a valid approach. However, even that is
debatable: there is
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Marko Kreen wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 02:23:27AM +0200, Edgar Toernig wrote:
Daniel Phillips wrote:
It's going to be marked 'd', it's a directory, not a file.
Aha. So you lose the S_ISCHR/BLK attribute.
Readdir fills in a directory type, so ls
Malcolm Beattie writes:
Andreas Dilger writes:
PS - I used to think shrinking a filesystem online was useful, but there
are a huge amount of problems with this and very few real-life
benefits, as long as you can at least do offline shrinking. With
proper LVM usage, the
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > *boggle*
> > > >
> > > >[general sense of unease]
> >
> > I fully agree with Oliver. It's an abomination.
>
> We are, or at least, I am, investigating this question purely on
> technical grounds - name calling is a noop. I'd be happy to find
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
*boggle*
[general sense of unease]
I fully agree with Oliver. It's an abomination.
We are, or at least, I am, investigating this question purely on
technical grounds - name calling is a noop. I'd be happy to find a
real reason why
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > I don't think it's likely to be even workable. Just consider the
> > directory entry for a moment - is it going to be marked d or [cb]?
>
> It's going to be marked 'd', it's a directory, not a file.
Are we talking about the same proposal? The one
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 21 May 2001 19:16, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> > What I'd like to see:
> >
> > - An interface for registering an array of related devices (almost
> > always two: raw and ctl) and their legacy device numbers with a
> > single userspace callout
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Monday 21 May 2001 19:16, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
What I'd like to see:
- An interface for registering an array of related devices (almost
always two: raw and ctl) and their legacy device numbers with a
single userspace callout that does
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
I don't think it's likely to be even workable. Just consider the
directory entry for a moment - is it going to be marked d or [cb]?
It's going to be marked 'd', it's a directory, not a file.
Are we talking about the same proposal? The one where
16 matches
Mail list logo
