[linux-lvm] LVM and inactive snapshots.
Jay Weber
jay at lazy.accessus.net
Thu Dec 14 04:51:46 UTC 2000
Along these lines, after I filled a snapshot I did the following:
umount /snapshot
umount /source
vgchange -an
rmmod lvm-mod
insmod lvm-mod
vgscan
vgchange -ay
lvdisplay /snapshot
And the snapshot showed that it was active and had 0% of it's reserved
space filled. BUG?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Jay Weber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems both LVM 0.8 and 0.9 don't address snapshots running out of
> reserved space very well. From experience using it here's what I'm
> seeing.
>
> When a snapshot runs out of reserved space, lvm deactivates the snapshot
> and cleans up it's allocation units it was using for it. It still leaves
> the snapshot volume device around as well and if the snapshot was actively
> mounted, it remains mounted. Keep in mind after the snapshot has gone
> inactive, the dataset image it is portraying is NOT the same as it was
> prior, viewing it in inactive state seems to show the exact same data that
> the source volume contains, ie. it's a pointer back to source volume.
>
> Given the above I'm curious as to how others view this behaviour. I'm
> thinking along the lines of: If the snapshot goes inactive and it's
> portrayal of the filesystem is no longer valid it should go away. Go away
> meaning, if an inactive snapshot volume is currently mounted possibly we
> should forcefully unmount it as well as cleaning up it's device node
> entries and removing it as a block device.
>
> Does that seem proper?
>
> I suppose the ideal here is that you should never run out of reserved
> space though, and if you were DEPENDING on that snapshot and you did run
> out of reserved space, well, I assume you're just completely screwed in
> that case. :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm at sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
>
More information about the linux-lvm
mailing list