From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:56:13 +0000 From: "Karl O. Pinc" Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Difference in LVM and LVM2 and their strength/weakness References: In-Reply-To: (from achen@packetmotion.com on Sun Jan 22 20:16:33 2006) Message-Id: <1138024573l.3950l.2l@mofo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp="Yes"; format="Flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Cc: mauelshagen@redhat.com On 01/22/2006 08:16:33 PM, Alex Chen wrote: > Heinz, thanks for the information/ > > The main intention of our interest of LIME to use it for snapshots. > I am told that it is a very quick way to make backups. Is that true? (LIME?) To be pedantic, LVM is absolutely not a backup. You can use it to make backups from a known state of the system while the system continues to be updated. Note that unless you've a way to force your appilcations, databases, etc. into a known/internally consistent state at the moment the sanapshot is created this quality is of questionable merit. YMMV. If you trash the filesystem by crashing the disk, etc., your lvm snapshot will be trashed too. Hence, not a backup. See, for example, rsync with --link-dest for a way to make backups from your snapshot that retain snapshot-like disk utilization properties. Karl Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward." -- Robert A. Heinlein