Hi,
I saw some interesting things with LVM and JFS the other day, i think the JFS in this situation was reiserfs. The system was a large x86 based server solution running Mandrake with LVM + JFS and within this OS was VMwares GSX Server with multiple Instances of Win2k (Although any OS in theory could be supported...) In a 15 Second period, all instances of the operating environments running within VMWare could be suspended, the logical volumes could be quickly split off ( i am guessing it was a mirrored copy of an lvol and the lvsplit command was used) the virtual systems were resumed, and the split copies of the lvols were fs checked and mounted somewhere else for backing up. All of this done with very little client downtime. Once backed up the lvol could be remerged with the 'stale' copy of the lvol and when it was time to backup again, it happens all over again... I was pretty impressed, although, I would have to play a bit with it myself to see how it really goes.. especially under high loads and to see what the performance was like when you are readding the split mirror copy to the VG, as it does thrash the disks heavily from what i have seen under HP-UX. Cheers, Keiran Brad Thomson wrote: > On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:03, Jill Rowling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>On which filesystem? Were you using Linux EXT3 ..? >> >>One thing I'd like to try BTW is the new (to Solaris 8) "snap" feature for >>backup of a live UFS. >>I'm not sure that anyone has attempted to emulate that sort of thing yet on >>a journalling Linux filesystem. >>Basically it uses the journalling features of UFS to keep two effective >>journals running at once (or so I'm told), and the "snap" mount can just be >>deleted when you are finished with it. Though it apparently makes the system >>run slower when you are doing things. >> > > LVM enables you to take a snapshot of a live filesystem in this way. > > A while back when version control of properietary document formats was > discussed, I had the idea of having X days of snapshots available, and the > ability for a user to automount them via a Samba share if they needed to > access older revisions. > > I never did get around to trying it and promptly forgot about it, but I > can't see why it wouldn't work. I'm not *sure*, but I don't think LVM > snapshots require the physical size of the data on the parition to be > available for each snap. > > Brad. > > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
