On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 06:57:56PM +1000, Martin Rudat wrote: > Hi, > > On 2013-02-25 20:46, Wolfgang Hennerbichler wrote: > >maybe some of you are interested in this - I'm using a dedicated VM to > >backup important VMs which have their storage in RBD. This is nothing > >fancy and not implemented perfectly, but it works. The VM's don't notice > >that they're backed up, the only requirement is that the filesystem of > >the VM is directly on the RBD, the script doesn't calculate offsets of > >partition tables. > Looking at how you're doing that, if you trust the script to be able > to create new snapshots; couldn't you do that with less machinery > involved by installing the ceph binaries on the backup host, > creating the snapshot and attaching it with rbd, rather than > attaching it to the VM? this was written at a time where kernels could not map format 2 rbd images. > Also; where's the fsck call? You're snapshotting a running system; > it's almost guaranteed that you've done the snapshot in the middle > of a batch of writes; then again, it would be cool to be able to ask > the VM to sync, to capture a consistent filesystem, though. I use journaling filesystems. The journal is replayed during mount (can be seen in kernel logs) and the FS is therefore considered to be clean. > I don't know about recent kernels, but older ones could be made to > crash by boldly mounting a filesystem that hadn't been fscked. This works for production systems. That's what journals are all about, right? wogri > -- > Martin Rudat > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- http://www.wogri.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |