From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.6]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8GLeXEp002571 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:34 -0400 Received: from server.klug.on.ca (server.klug.on.ca [205.189.48.131]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8GLeMtU026365 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:22 -0400 Received: from linux.interlinx.bc.ca (d67-193-217-194.home3.cgocable.net [67.193.217.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server.klug.on.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08582806 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:4978:161:0:218:f3ff:fee1:65cc] (pc.interlinx.bc.ca [IPv6:2001:4978:161:0:218:f3ff:fee1:65cc]) by linux.interlinx.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B4D8762 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Using LVM Mirroring to obtain a usable backup From: "Brian J. Murrell" In-Reply-To: <1253128546.3243.13.camel@delo.gdit> References: <1253109566.5326.15.camel@delo.gdit> <20090916170533.62999698@fixlaptop.gillibert.homelinux.net> <1253119669.5326.32.camel@delo.gdit> <1253120322.16343.71.camel@pc.interlinx.bc.ca> <1253128546.3243.13.camel@delo.gdit> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-n85tY8HRV3yv6SsRhf+n" Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:49:41 -0400 Message-Id: <1253130581.16343.258.camel@pc.interlinx.bc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 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: To: LVM general discussion and development --=-n85tY8HRV3yv6SsRhf+n Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:15 +0200, Ambrogio De Lorenzo wrote: >=20 > Imagine that upgrade change something in LVM configuration or in lvm > software. Well, that is most certainly a corner case. LVM/device-mapper is very stable and never caused me a problem of this nature. > Snapshots are good only if you have the original data and all the > modified data. Of course. You have to have LVM in order for snapshots to work. > I know very well how snapshot works. And it's for this reason that I > don't think it's a good choise for my scope So why not take this opportunity to learn something new? I love opportunities like that. > Yes, but LVM is already configured for this reason. > Mdadm isn't. I tried to test it but I'm not able to obtain a mirror of > an already partitioned and used disk. So (to beat a dead horse) use a snapshot then. b. --=-n85tY8HRV3yv6SsRhf+n Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkqxQVUACgkQl3EQlGLyuXCFVQCfZjWFosSKxSKIxkS2MzTTvcyG IzQAoL6b8S1Tzv7uyT2aVJG2Q4q5FJ7w =2kEq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-n85tY8HRV3yv6SsRhf+n--