[clue-tech] Custom partition scheme?

[Shawn Perry]

David Willson is using VMWare Server 1.x with the vmdk files saved on
a LVM partition.  He currently pauses the machines and takes a LVM
snapshot of the partition to make snapshot backups easier.  He then
unpauses the VMs and rsyncs from the LVM snapshot to a external drive
to be offsited.  He's not using VMWare snapshots for backups.

Shawn

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Mike Bean <beandaemon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Seconded.  In two years at this job, I've seen allot of snapshot related, we
> call them "resume generating events".
> Bean
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In my environment, mostly virtualized servers in VMware Server on Linux,
>> > LVM snapshots make simple backups possible. Without LVM snapshots, backups
>> > would be a nightmare.
>> >
>>
>> An LVM snapshot isn't a copy of the data... it just marks where the
>> snapshot took place, and then knows how to "get back there"... a Hansel
>> and Gretel trail of breadcrumbs so to speak.  (It keeps track of the
>> original inode numbers.)
>>
>> I have used snapshots on LVM and other filesystem types that are capable
>> of snapshots to "freeze" the filesystem so a relatively slower
>> backup-to-tape system could then back that snapshot up over a weekend's
>> time, so that no changes are taking place to the data, while the backup
>> is running.  That works well.
>>
>> But if LVM itself fails, the snapshots aren't copies, and they're gone
>> gone gone... they're not a substitute for getting the data off, and onto
>> another platter, tape, CD, whatever...
>>
>> As a tool to "freeze" everything so a backup can be taken, tools like
>> LVM are great.  (Don't forget to "quiet" your databases and other things
>> on that disk, if you have things there that aren't just files, but are
>> actively being written to like binary DB spaces, etc.)
>>
>> My point was only that the limitations of the tool must be known, and
>> one of those is that LVM *can* fail, just like anything else...
>>
>> It doesn't happen often, but I've seen it (once)... it took out the
>> machine.  I've also seen professional grade but similar tools like
>> Veritas barf and take out all of someone's data too... there's all sorts
>> of ugly once-in-a-lifetime failures that the only thing that will fix
>> them is good backups, and a bare-metal recovery plan!
>>
>> So if you meant that LVM is a useful tool if you plan to use it as a way
>> to "quiet" your filesystem you're backing up to somewhere else, I
>> definitely agree, and building with LVM in mind up-front is required.
>>  But having LVM on by default for folks without a real plan on how to
>> manage their systems, is kinda silly on the part of many Linux distros,
>> and just adds complexity they may not (or may...) need.
>>
>> I don't ascribe to the "turn it all on, we might need it" philosophy of
>> system management, because every 100 lines of code has at least one bug
>> in it... the less overall code running, the less overall risk of
>> failures... in my humble opinion.  There's enough complexity in the
>> computing world without turning on things like LVM by default long
>> before a new sysadmin even knows what it is, and what they can (and
>> can't) use it for.  :-)
>>
>> Nate
>> _______________________________________________
>> clue-tech mailing list
>> clue-tech at cluedenver.org
>> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-tech mailing list
> clue-tech at cluedenver.org
> http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech
>