Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Is\s+xfsdump\s+operation\s+atomic\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Is\s+xfsdump\s+operation\s+atomic\?\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: c@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:12:04 +0100; I wonder if xfsdump is an atomic operation and thus can be savely used on a live filesystem? If not, what is the recommended way to backup a live XFS filesystem? I guess this information would also; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00120.html (8,161 bytes)
2. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:17:33 -0500 (EST); Personally, I'm using a RAID card, on which I mirror my XFS filesystem on multiple drives. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or htt; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00121.html (9,218 bytes)
3. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:37 +0100; Hello. It is not atomic AFAIK. You may use LVM snapshots (untested): - freeze the filesystem - snapshot it - unfreeze the filesystem - xfsdump on the snapshot - remove the snapshot At work, we do not; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00122.html (8,529 bytes)
4. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: i@xxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:29:19 +0100; Am 23.11.2004 um 13:15 schrieb Mike Burger: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Locher wrote: Am 23.11.2004 um 12:17 schrieb Mike Burger: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Locher wrote: I wonder if xfsdump is an; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00123.html (10,909 bytes)
5. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:08:27 +1100; No it isn't. Yes it can. In fact it can _only_ be run on a live filesystem. Whatever you like that suits your needs. xfsdump is suitable for many but there are many options from commercial backup pro; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00130.html (9,665 bytes)
6. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:50:56 +0100; Ivan, thanks for commenting on this. Am 23.11.2004 um 13:12 schrieb Ivan Rayner: You seem to be of the opinion that you can't create a backup of a live filesystem. My guess is that you assume a backu; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00133.html (9,346 bytes)
7. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: c@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:49:47 +0100; It is not always OK. If the files are independent then it is OK. If they are not you have big troubles. Eg. if you have an IMAP server and you have: 1 File containing messages index 2-9999999 files c; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00135.html (9,283 bytes)
8. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:43:36 -0800; This is why snapshots were invented. Michael Locher wrote: Ivan, thanks for commenting on this. Am 23.11.2004 um 13:12 schrieb Ivan Rayner: You seem to be of the opinion that you can't create a backu; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00138.html (10,444 bytes)
9. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:18:51 +0100; Christian, I am well aware that this problem can be solved properly with snapshots. My point is, that the exact behavior of xfsdump is "underdocumented". I surprised a few colleagues when I told them; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00139.html (9,195 bytes)
10. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxx; Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:16:01 +1100; In that case your file may be inconsistent on tape. However, because it has been updated since xfsdump started (ie. its mtime > xfsdump time) it will be included in tomorrow night's incremental dump.; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00149.html (9,840 bytes)
11. Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: " <prakashkc@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:12:04 +0100; I wonder if xfsdump is an atomic operation and thus can be savely used on a live filesystem? If not, what is the recommended way to backup a live XFS filesystem? I guess this information would also; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00290.html (8,161 bytes)
12. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: locher@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:17:33 -0500 (EST); Personally, I'm using a RAID card, on which I mirror my XFS filesystem on multiple drives. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or htt; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00291.html (9,218 bytes)
13. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:37 +0100; Hello. It is not atomic AFAIK. You may use LVM snapshots (untested): - freeze the filesystem - snapshot it - unfreeze the filesystem - xfsdump on the snapshot - remove the snapshot At work, we do not; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00292.html (8,529 bytes)
14. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: las.Kowalski@xxxxxxx; Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:29:19 +0100; Am 23.11.2004 um 13:15 schrieb Mike Burger: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Locher wrote: Am 23.11.2004 um 12:17 schrieb Mike Burger: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Michael Locher wrote: I wonder if xfsdump is an; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00293.html (10,909 bytes)
15. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: rton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:08:27 +1100; No it isn't. Yes it can. In fact it can _only_ be run on a live filesystem. Whatever you like that suits your needs. xfsdump is suitable for many but there are many options from commercial backup pro; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00300.html (9,665 bytes)
16. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:50:56 +0100; Ivan, thanks for commenting on this. Am 23.11.2004 um 13:12 schrieb Ivan Rayner: You seem to be of the opinion that you can't create a backup of a live filesystem. My guess is that you assume a backu; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00303.html (9,346 bytes)
17. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: " <prakashkc@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:49:47 +0100; It is not always OK. If the files are independent then it is OK. If they are not you have big troubles. Eg. if you have an IMAP server and you have: 1 File containing messages index 2-9999999 files c; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00305.html (9,283 bytes)
18. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: aby <as@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:43:36 -0800; This is why snapshots were invented. Michael Locher wrote: Ivan, thanks for commenting on this. Am 23.11.2004 um 13:12 schrieb Ivan Rayner: You seem to be of the opinion that you can't create a backu; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00308.html (10,444 bytes)
19. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: ce <xian@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:18:51 +0100; Christian, I am well aware that this problem can be solved properly with snapshots. My point is, that the exact behavior of xfsdump is "underdocumented". I surprised a few colleagues when I told them; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00309.html (9,195 bytes)
20. Re: Is xfsdump operation atomic? (score: 1): Author: la-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:16:01 +1100; In that case your file may be inconsistent on tape. However, because it has been updated since xfsdump started (ie. its mtime > xfsdump time) it will be included in tomorrow night's incremental dump.; /archives/xfs/2004-11/msg00319.html (9,840 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]