On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:00:03PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2007-Oct-16 06:54:11 -0500, Eric Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >will give you a good understanding of what the issue is. Essentially, your
> >disk is hammered making copies of all the cylinder groups, skipping those
> >tha
Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:00:03PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2007-Oct-16 06:54:11 -0500, Eric Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
will give you a good understanding of what the issue is. Essentially, your
disk is hammered making copies of all the cylinder groups, skip
On 2007-Oct-16 06:54:11 -0500, Eric Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>will give you a good understanding of what the issue is. Essentially, your
>disk is hammered making copies of all the cylinder groups, skipping those
>that are 'busy', and coming back to them later. On a 200Gb disk, you coul
Jeremy Chadwich wrote:
>That said, for such setups, would you recommend *not* using snapshots?
>If so, possibly we should consider removing the following code from
>src/sbin/dump/main.c:
>334 } else if (snapdump == 0) {
>335 msg("WARNING: %s\n",
>336
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:44:36AM -0700, Simun Mikecin wrote:
> Not using a snapshot for dump may produce inconsistent dump image if there
> was writing during
> dumping. Maybe it should say something like "should use -L when dumping live
> read-write
> filesystems for the result to be consisten
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:54:11AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> The problem is the way the snapshots work in UFS2.
[...]
> ... the docs that say 'incredibly fast' are actually referring to
> small filesystems, that are not busy (with writes). Maybe the docs
> should be clarified for now. You c
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Since the snapshot code (e.g. mksnap_ffs(8) and friends) was introduced,
dump(8) was modified to nag you if you didn't use the -L argument. "Um,
okay, I'd better use -L" is what came out of my mouth, and I'm sure a
lot of other administrators' when they saw this message.
Since the snapshot code (e.g. mksnap_ffs(8) and friends) was introduced,
dump(8) was modified to nag you if you didn't use the -L argument. "Um,
okay, I'd better use -L" is what came out of my mouth, and I'm sure a
lot of other administrators' when they saw this message.
But it seems the making a
8 matches
Mail list logo
