From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 11 12:00:47 2003 Return-Path: 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 60A3037B404; Sun, 11 May 2003 12:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow025o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.125]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC7A43FE9; Sun, 11 May 2003 12:00:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from schweikh@schweikhardt.net) Received: from mail pickup service by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 May 2003 18:47:59 +0100 Received: from mx2.freebsd.org ([216.136.204.119]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.757.75); Sat, 10 May 2003 17:42:50 +0100 Received: from hub.freebsd.org (hub.freebsd.org [216.136.204.18]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78CF574AC; Sat, 10 May 2003 07:41:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org) Received: from hub.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BFB37B405; Sat, 10 May 2003 07:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFE937B401; Sat, 10 May 2003 07:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bremen.shuttle.de (bremen.shuttle.de [194.95.249.251]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B1743FE0; Sat, 10 May 2003 07:41:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from schweikh@schweikhardt.net) Received: from bremen.shuttle.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bremen.shuttle.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F10A17D44; Sat, 10 May 2003 16:41:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from uucp@localhost)h4AEfVC7011365; Sat, 10 May 2003 16:41:31 +0200 Received: (from schweikh@localhost) by hal9000.schweikhardt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h4AEfW1C004768; Sat, 10 May 2003 16:41:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from schweikh) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 16:41:32 +0200 From: Jens Schweikhardt To: Farid Hajji Message-ID: <20030510144132.GA4214@schweikhardt.net> References: <200305100055.37190.me@farid-hajji.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200305100055.37190.me@farid-hajji.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Errors-To: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are snapshots always consistent? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Reply-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 19:00:47 -0000 Farid, On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 12:55:37AM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote: # I'm somewhat confused about snapshots. # # Are snapshots (e.g. created with dump -L) supposed to # be always in a consistent state? # # What happens if a snapshot is taken, while background # fsck is fixing a filesystem? I'm no expert in file systems, but AFAIK the bg fsck mostly looks for unreferenced blocks and puts them in the free block bitmap again, while dump reads files (contents) and does not store block bitmaps and other fs meta information. So, these operations should not interfere with one another. # If snapshots are not always consistent, how can one # be sure about dump -L output? Is it better to take # a snapshot first, fsck it, and _then_ dump the # snapshot without -L (how?)? The most appropriate place to ask this is probably freebsd-fs@ (in Cc: and Reply-To:). Regards, Jens -- Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/ SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"