From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 14 20:57:46 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB4916A4CE for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:57:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dexter.starfire.mn.org (starfire.skypoint.net [66.93.17.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1597D43D2F for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:57:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from john@dexter.starfire.mn.org) Received: (from john@localhost) by dexter.starfire.mn.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) id j0EKvea11335; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:57:40 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from john) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:57:40 -0600 From: John To: Tabor Kelly Message-ID: <20050114145740.A11218@starfire.mn.org> References: <41E82BF9.2030505@taborandtashell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <41E82BF9.2030505@taborandtashell.net>; 2005 at 12:30:49PM -0800 cc: Jeff MacDonald cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backups / Dump etc X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:57:46 -0000 On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:30:49PM -0800, Tabor Kelly wrote: > Jeff MacDonald wrote: > > > > On a related note: > > If I want to do complete dumps of all of my file systems do I need to be > in single user mode? Will running in multiuser mode (with all of my > normal daemons running) mess up my dumps? If you are running FreeBSD 5.x, you get the cool "L" option on dump which will automatically snapshot the mounted filesystems. NOTE! This is WONDERFUL, but not the same as shutting things down. You will have a point-in-time image, but that may not be the end of the story. WARNING! What follows is a true depiction of the situation, but don't let it panic you. This deals with fairly pathological timing situations, which occur infrequently in small server situations with relatively few users. If you make regular, frequent backups, you will be much better off than 99% of us, anyway... What you will be protected from is a situation where files change size during the backup, so that the filesystem meta (inode) information captured at the beginning will not reflect the state of the filesystem at the end. This is a good thing to avoid. Let's take the case where you've just edited a file with vi, for instance. Let us further conjecture that you have added many lines to the top of the file, making it longer, but from the front on. Let us posit that the dump kicks off just as you are writing the new file, let's say half-way through. The top half of the file is the new data, the bottom half is the old data, and may be internally inconsistent with the front. >From an fsck point of view, there is no problem. The state of the inode and the state of the data blocks are CONSISTENT with respect to where they were at the moment the snapshot was taken (NOT guaranteed without the snapshot - in fact, without the snapshot, you could theoretically be backing up data blocks that may not even be part of that file any longer). You got a snapshot of the file between "write()" operations. Please understand that NO PERFECT SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM EXISTS TODAY in any operating system or computing environment that I know of. Oracle and other databases can guarantee RESTARTABILITY from point-in-time images, but that is at the expense of backing out incomplete transactions. Anything that the application knows belongs in the file, but which it hasn't actually WRITTEN yet, will be lost. Snapshot it wonderful, if you could make sure that all your applications were quiesced at the time of the snapshot. There is no universal way, today, of quisecing all applications (think everyting from databases to someone's first C program). So - if you can guarantee that everyone's work is in a consistent state from the application point of view at the moment the snapshot is taken, then you are golden. Otherwise, if a file is in the middle of being posted to the disk when the snapshot it taken, it will be consistent from a filesystem perspective, but may be useless as a C program, shell script, or e-mail message. The operating system simply has no way to know that the application is holding data which have not been written yet. If you make regular backups, no problem. If your recovery point happens to contain one inconsistent file (and that could only happen if the file was in the process of being written at the time the snapshot was triggered), then you can recover that file from the state it was in the previous day. Databases and other sophisticated applications are written in such a way that they can survive this sort of problem, though possibly at the expense of in-flight transactions or operations. Simpler applications, which have a sequential, linear view of data as a stream of bytes, may not be as fortunate, but the chances of getting caught at this point is very small. What can you do? Well, you can kick everyone off the system for the moment that it takes the dump snap to trigger, or you can just grin and bear it - the cost/benefit analysis is for you to make, we can only advise you of what the technology can do. You don't have to unmount the filesystems or shut down the system, but that still remains the only 100%, fool-proof, guaranteed method of having all data consistent from an application point of view. Maybe I should submit this to the handbook - or has it been covered already? I didn't see it when I was reading the backup section last night. -- John Lind john@starfire.MN.ORG