Quoting Matt Helsley (matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx): > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > 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. > > The code in the patches does check for unlinked files and refuses > to checkpoint if an unlinked file is open. Yes, this limits the usefulness Oh, haha - open/mapped unlinked files. Sorry :) -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
