Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]device arguments from lookup)

["Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:59:32PM -0600, Peter J. Braam wrote:
 
> But during recovery, LVM cannot possibly know if the whole process of
> copying out the data from the current to the snapshot area completed
> during the previous run. Yes, LVM updates the redirection table first and
> then copies, but, still, you don't know _where exactly_ the writes stopped
> happening and in particular you don't know if the block was copied already
> or not.

LVM updates the snapshot redirection without knowing that the new
redirection location has been written?  So if I write to a LVM
snapshot and take a crash, I might not actually get either the old or
the new data, but in fact some previous random contents of a new
block?  Eek.  Journaling will not like that.  Databases won't like
that.  Anything that relies on fsync to ensure some write ordering on
disk will be potentially upset by that.

> It's better to keep the snapshot in the old volume and write the new data
> to a separate area (that's what most commercial systems do I think).

No.  The commercial systems write snapshots to a new area, usually.
There are two very good reason for that --- when you come to delete a
snapshot, there's no IO involved; and you avoid fragmenting the
original root volume.  

In systems I'm familiar with, the copy-out is always done in the same
direction with the snapshot getting the new block.  This even happens
if the snapshot is writable: regardless of whether it is the snapshot
or the root being written, the copy-out always results in the snapshot
getting moved, not the root.

Cheers, 
 Stephen