Re: Back to the future.

[Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>]

Am Freitag, 27. April 2007 08:18 schrieb Pekka J Enberg:
> > No. The snapshot is just that. A snapshot in time. From kernel point of 
> > view, it doesn't matter one bit what when you did it or if the state has 
> > changed before you resume. It's up to userspace to make sure the user 
> > doesn't do real work while the snapshot is being written to disk and 
> > machine is shut down.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> And where is the benefit in that? How is such user space freezing logic
> simpler than having the kernel do the write?
>
> What can you do in user space if all filesystems are r/o that is worth the
> hassle?

I am talking about snapshot_system() here. It's not given that the 
filesystems need to be read-only (you can snapshot them too). The benefit 
here is that you can do whatever you want with the snapshot (encrypt, 
compress, send over the network)  and have a clean well-defined interface 
in the kernel. In addition, aborting the snapshot is simpler, simply 
munmap() the snapshot.

The problem with writing in the kernel is obvious: we need to add new code 
to the kernel for compression, encryption, and userspace interaction 
(graphical progress bar) that are important for user experience.

				Pekka