| From: | Matt <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Murthy Kambhampaty <murthy(dot)kambhampaty(at)goeci(dot)com>, 'Peter Eisentraut' <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LVM snapshots |
| Date: | 2003-04-04 18:27:16 |
| Message-ID: | 3E8DCE84.2060909@ymogen.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Tom Lane wrote:
> A lot of detailed and informative stuff essentially equating a
snapshot backup with a system crash
And I have to agree with what Tom said. An FS snapshot should indeed
look just like an instantaneous halt in processing. Murthy's testing
does involve a pretty heavy load, and it is in a sense reassuring that
it manages to generate the same kind of issues, and that PostgreSQL's
ability to recover from such crashes is so good.
Maybe one could use FS snapshots as a way to test crash recovery without
needing to crash the system!
Anyway, I was about to respond to Tom's comment that it looked like a
snapshotting bug, but can we take it from yr subsequent post Tom that
you no longer think so?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-04 18:29:00 | Re: LVM snapshots |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2003-04-04 18:19:38 | Re: restore a dump file (with postgis tables): errors!! |