| gabriel rosenkoetter on Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:20:05 -0500 |
|
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:40:42AM -0800, Marc Zucchelli wrote: > soon used to host websites. Obviously it is not a > good idea to remount a partition that has live > websites on it to read-only, even at odd hours of the > night. Why? What's writing to that disk that's not a developer doing work? > In this case, is it still a bad idea to run > backups on the live, writable filesystem? It's still a bad idea, because you run the risk of getting a flawed backup, but plenty of people do it anyway without too much trouble. Software like Veritas's volume manager (and maybe that whole LVM routine I haven't played with?) let you make snapshots of live disks using unallocated disk. That means that new writes from the point when you start the snapshot till the time that the unallocated disk is used up go to a scratch volume in the unallocated space. The regular file system is presented through the filter of the scratch disk, but you can mount a device that refers to the underlying disk, without changes since the time the snapshot was started, and backup from that as if it were the file system mounted read-only. > Other than that...I just simulated the problem by > taring a list of files, and making one of them not > readable to the user that was taring it, I found that > all the messages I need go right to stderr, this > should be a good start for me, thanks everyone. If you're writing to tape, have a look at Schily tar. It's noticeably faster, and more POSIX-compliant, than GNU tar. -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgp8Fd1euM0sG.pgp
|
|