From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Nov 4 0:34:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA0D37B401; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 00:34:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EEA343E3B; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 00:34:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id E40E6AE28A; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 00:34:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 00:34:53 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: fs@freebsd.org Cc: Kirk McKusick , Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: snapshots+dump/restore Message-ID: <20021104083453.GR24139@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'm cc'ing the those most involved with the current code. When taking a dump(8) on a ufs filesystem with a snapshot node the dump grabs the snapshot file and trys to dump it, shouldn't some flag or something be set on the file that tells dump(8) to skip over it? If the semantics can be agreed on I can take a shot at implementing a fix/workaround/whatever. I particularly think that dump should _never_ try to grab a .fsck_snapshot file. Comments/suggestions? -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message