From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:49:53 +0100 (IST) From: Paul Jakma Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM 0.8final for 2.2.15/2.2.16? In-Reply-To: <20000608103415.A3935@gruyere.muc.suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-lvm Errors-To: owner-linux-lvm List-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andi Kleen Cc: Jos Visser , Paul Jakma , Michael Marxmeier , jan@gondor.com, linux-lvm@msede.com On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Andi Kleen wrote: > consider a database that uses user space journaling using fsync: > to make its disk files consistent after the snapshot it requires > both the log write and the data write. When one is missing the > log needs to be replayed, which requires writes. but doesn't the call to block_fsync that Heinz confirmed exists cover this? nothing can cover the case where app data consistency depends on a future write(). But that's the app's problem, and anyway a good database should be consistent/recover itself if it's died between write(?)'s. right? (in which case lvm snapshot is perfectly suitable for backing up databases..) --paulj