On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:14:53PM -0500, Jonas Meyer wrote:
> Hmm... What is the preferred method of backup for a VM then? As I
> said, I'd rather not install ssh on every guest if I don't have to.
depends how consistent a backup you need and what level of
resource usage you can tolerate. e.g.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:00:17PM -0500, Jonas Meyer wrote:
> It seems to be nearly instant, yes. If not instant, it is within 2-3
> minutes. I am using ext3, so I should be mounting read-only. I wasn't,
> but somehow it doesn't seem like messing with the journal a little bit
> would screw up t
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:40:08PM +, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Between stop and go the filesystem is still mounted on the guest right?
> If so, you are screwing the filesystems by mounting them on the host:
> the mount command will run fixups on the (journaled?) filesystem.
> (You could try mou
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 09:50:22AM +0100, Juraj Holtak wrote:
> new data:
>
> not forcing a sync mount for the guest makes the performance impact of
> disabling write cache very low.
>
> The question is: What`s the smaller evil???
With O_SYNC off, guests are vulnerable to data corruption
if the
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 12:36:50AM +0100, Juraj Holtak wrote:
> I still do not understand, why the guests became that much slow. Could
> somebody explain me why?
Very probably you're suffering from seeing the real seek
performance of the disks. Switching on the write cache
hides this, at the cost
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:57:35AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
[...]
> What we really want are write barriers (which I don't believe Linux exposes
> to
> userspace but I'm not sure), and for UBD to propogate through actual fsync
> requests to the underlying OS.
I did some work on this six wee
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 08:59:54PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2005 14:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > > At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
> > > won't work (
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:11:18PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
[...]
> 5. sysemu too - patch that into the host, or use current -linus or -mm, which
> has it already.
At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has there been
work fixing this?
--
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 08:39:46AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
> > won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has there been
> > work fixing this?
>
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:25:01PM +0300, Anton Titov wrote:
> Sorry for the offtopic but I'm allmost sure, that what the guy at
> http://nslug.ns.ca/pipermail/nslug/2005-June/008456.html is seeng is
> syncronization of software raid and load of 1 will disappear in a hour
> or something.
quite rig
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 06:36:13PM +0200, Sebastian Böhm wrote:
> Tasks: 20 total, 2 running, 18 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, _*100.0%
> hi*_, 0.0% si
[...]
> uname -a
> Linux sindar 2.6.12.2-bs1 #1 Wed Jul 6 15:50:16 CEST 2
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:59:33PM +, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> I'm observing strace(1) behaving oddly under recent 2.4.x
> versions. Under 2.4.27 with uml-patch-2.4.27-1 and strace
> 4.5.8, we get:
[...]
> Has anyone else observed this and looked into it in more
> det
I'm observing strace(1) behaving oddly under recent 2.4.x
versions. Under 2.4.27 with uml-patch-2.4.27-1 and strace
4.5.8, we get:
# strace /bin/echo
execve("/bin/echo", ["/bin/echo"], [/* 13 vars */]) = 0
exit_group(0) = ?
which isn't very useful.
Under 2.4.26 + uml-p
13 matches
Mail list logo
