> Thanks Darren, but the snapshot taken at 4 would be the snapshot on
> the storage and not on the host
I'm not sure what the difference is. I was discussing this in the
context of ZFS, so all the snapshots I meant were ZFS/host snapshots.
> so the storage system wouldnt really
> have to bother
Thanks Darren, but the snapshot taken at 4 would be the snapshot on the storage
and not on the host so the storage system wouldnt really have to bother about
flushing the host FS or about consistency...which would be more a function of
the host FS or app?.
This message posted from opensolari
> Thanks Darren, so a sync should do the job for me in that case. How
> about locking the FS so that i dont miss any new writes further on?.
I'm not sure I understand what you might miss here. Normally you'd ask
your application to make itself consistent, take a snapshot, then when
the snapshot w
Thanks Darren, so a sync should do the job for me in that case. How about
locking the FS so that i dont miss any new writes further on?.
Anything similar to lockfs?.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@op
