From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikola Ciprich Subject: Re: consistent LVM snapshot of domUs from dom0 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:32:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <200712191853.22463.mark.williamson@cl.cam.ac.uk> <200712241639.17100.mark.williamson@cl.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200712241639.17100.mark.williamson@cl.cam.ac.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Mark Williamson Cc: andy@cs.ubc.ca, nikola.ciprich@linuxbox.cz, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, Mark Williamson wrote: Hi Mark, is there some progress regarding this subject? Still, if there is something I could help with, please do not hesitate to tell me what could I do... Cheers Nik > > Yes, I think that's a sensible first step to take. Later on, we could perhaps > look into putting some more smarts in, e.g. doing the snapshot creation > automatically in the case that an LVM volume or QCow virtual disk is already > being used. > > I hadn't come across freeze/thaw_bdev before - I'd found a lock / unlock call > for filesystem locking somewhere that looked promising but not implemented it > yet. I imagine it might boil down to a similar thing in the end. > > Either way, being able to freeze specific block devices could be useful for > backup purposes. There's no point freezing filesystems that are not used to > store backed-up data, for instance! > >> >> Yup, agree :) >> Cheers! > > OK, I'll try and get some code online at some point and let you know when it's > available.