>> What I would like to do is use one
>> normally, and mount the second system read-only to
perform backups and>> to rsync the filesystem to another filesystem. When
it's mounted>> read-write from another system, will mounting the
same filesystem>> read-only cause the journal to be committed at the
time it's mounted?>
>Yes, that is very bad.
Can you elaborate why mounting a filesystem read-only
is "dangerous"?
>
>> If so, is that a bad thing, that is, will it
corrupt the filesystem?>
>Yes, it can corrupt the filesystem.
I assume, then, that mounting the filesystem read-only
flushes the
journal. Why does flushing it "early" corrupt the
filesystem?
>
>> Are journal events handled similar to databases,
with regard to transaction>> processing of journal events, or could playing
"partial" journal events>> (if there is such a thing) cause corruption? Is
mounting the read-only>> instance as a ext2 filesystem the best solution, or
does it matter if>> it's mounted ext2 or ext3 as long as it's
read-only?>
>You can't mount it as ext2.
>
Why? It seemed to work, although I'm not sure, from
the comments I've
been getting, that it's safe. The ext3-faq says:
How do I convert my ext3 partition back to ext2?
Actually there is only little need to do so,
because in most cases it
is sufficient to mount the partition explicitely as
ext2.
>I would instead use a block-device level backup, like
"dump" if you really>need to do it this way. You are probably better off
just doing the backup>from the primary node.
>
>Cheers, Andreas
>--
>Andreas Dilger
>Principal Software Engineer
>Cluster File Systems, Inc.
>
--
Jeff Garlough
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com