Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:05:56 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Andrea Venturoli <ml.diespammer@netfence.it> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: mksnap_ffs woes Message-ID: <20050330160556.GA688@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <424AE8FA.8080306@netfence.it> References: <424AACD1.3060802@netfence.it> <20050330134259.GA66640@xor.obsecurity.org> <424ACEF8.60601@netfence.it> <20050330141626.GB73682@xor.obsecurity.org> <424AE8FA.8080306@netfence.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 06:59:22PM +0100, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > >The snapshot code was intended to support background fsck and that > >alone. It's also optionally used by the dump code, but it was not > >written as a general-purpose live filesystem snapshot service. > > Ok. > I just think that this, as well as the disclaimer about it being alpha > code and the access locks, should be mentioned in the Handbook. Reading > that chapter or mksnap_ffs's manual, I didn't get it and I suspect > people might get the idea that it is stable code, which provides some > functionality that it doesn't. The 'alpha' part is what I meant about this file being out of date. It is stable and widely used, but that doesn't mean there are not bugs. > So, if for instantaneous you mean at a specific time, I don't care at > all wether the image is made an hour earlier or later. All I'd like is > coherence. Isn't this usually done by dumping the database state and then backing that up, instead of trying to back up the live database? Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCSs5kWry0BWjoQKURAs6bAJ9azLH9ZGyHqjK4JvKkDUVzF65JXgCeIY6u KADV5KtzuBfLPCmQk8cZea8= =L/HP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050330160556.GA688>