| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] A simple backup
Nick Anderson wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
This is not really ideal, since it's not always desirable to have to
save a domain's memory state. It would be nicer if you could somehow
guarantee a consistent filesystem state on your disk snapshot. I've
been looking into how to do this and I believe it's quite possible to
modify the code to support this properly.
Mark, thanks for the reply.
My thought is this. If I xm save it saves the memory state and pauses
the VM. While the vm is paused I can then snapshot the block device from
dom0 of the guest vm. Since the domain is paused there is no disk
activity during the snapshot, and anything that was possibly
half-written is in the memory state. So I should be able to reliably dd
the snapshot since when I try to restore I could try restoring the block
device state, and use xm restore on the checkpoint to restore the
memory at the same time. Is this not essentially what xm migrate does?
Can we not be assured that since we have memory state and block state at
that point in time that the data will be consistent?
.... When I say assured I mean just as assured as any other backup.
There is always the possibility of flipped bits, I am just thinking that
having memory state and block state when attempting a restore would be
very very close if not the same as having turned the domain off and
copied the block device then turn it back on.
hope that makes sense and there wasnt too much rambling.
Does that sound right? I guess I am really interested how lvm snapshots
are thought of as not safe when a domain is paused and you have the
memory state.
--
Nick Anderson <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.cmdln.org
http://www.anders0n.net
nick.vcf
Description: Vcard
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home