From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Caulfield Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] How well tested is the snapshot feature? Message-ID: <20020607101052.GD1053@tykepenguin.com> References: <20020607112710.A5563@babbage.hcsd.de> <20020607093300.GA2085@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> <20020607113705.A5571@babbage.hcsd.de> <20020607094430.GA2148@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> <20020607115623.B5571@babbage.hcsd.de> <20020607100706.GA2222@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020607100706.GA2222@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Jun 7 05:11:02 2002 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:07:06AM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:56:23AM +0200, Stephan Austermuehle wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 10:44:30AM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > > > > > Curious, as far as I know people are using LVM1 snapshots > > > successfully with xfs. > > > > To be pretty correct: I used the VFS lock patch from LVM 1.1-rc2 with > > LVM 1.0.4 because this doesn't give any rejects. But I had the problem > > with previous LVM versions with it's own VFS lock patch, too. > > > > At the moment I have two systems that cause trouble: One SuSE 7.0 > > based which is running about 2,5 years and one freshly installed > > Debian Woody system. Both have different hardware, compiler, libc, > > etc. Seems to be Kernel/LVM/XFS related. > > It wouldn't surprise me if there were problems with the 1.1rc2 kernel > patch since snapshots have been changed in that release ... but you > are using 1.0.4. I think he means the VFS lock patch in 1.1rc2 - which should be fine. It might be a stack size issue ? patrick