Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Jamie Lokier (jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx): > >> Matt Helsley wrote: >> >>>> That said, if the intent is to allow the restore to be done on >>>> another node with a "similar" filesystem (e.g. created by rsync/node >>>> image), instead of having a coherent distributed filesystem on all >>>> of the nodes then the filename makes sense. >>>> >>> Yes, this is the intent. >>> >> I would worry about programs which are using files which have been >> deleted, renamed, or (very common) renamed-over by another process >> after being opened, as there's a good chance they will successfully >> open the wrong file after c/r, and corrupt state from then on. >> > > Userspace is expected to back up and restore the filesystem, for > instance using a btrfs snapshot or a simple rsync or tar. > > That does not solve the problem Jamie is talking about. A rsync or a tar will not see a deleted file and using a btrfs to have the CR to work with the deleted files is a bit overkill, no ? I have another question about the deleted files. How is handled the case when a process has a deleted mapped file but without an associated file descriptor ? > If we detect anything which really is not supported (for instance > inotify for now) then we fail and leave a log message explaining the > failure. > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
