(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:47:16PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > My coda server is having hardware problems (a P6-200 from 1996!), and > I'm about to upgrade it to a PIII-933 with a disk that's only 2 years > old. The system is NetBSD 1.6.2. If you can keep the server alive for a couple more seconds. The norton dump/restore solution is definitely preferable, I used it before when moving our servers to new hardware. However the norton dump works best if you purge all backup volumes and other volume clones first, and you need a running server for that. The rvm dump file will contain the essence of what is stored in RVM, so you do have to copy the file data in /vicepa separately. norton-reinit then rebuilds everything in a new RVM data file (or partition) on the new machine. > I know I should have data, log, and vicepa on 3 spindles, but the new > machine will have only one disk. (Plus, I care about reliability far > more than speed.) I think we typically have DATA and /vicepa on one drive and keep the log separate. It isn't too hard to truncate, move the log later on. $ rvmutl * o LOG * recover (or truncate or something) * status (show show that it has been truncated) * q $ rm LOG $ rvmutl * i NEW-LOG 20M * q $ edit /etc/coda/server.conf > I believe that names in /vicepa are referenced in RVM, not inode > number, and that I should be able to just put LOG and DATA in vnds and > use them as partitions. The comments at > http://coda.wikidev.net/Optimizing_Coda_6.x make me believe that > migrating rvm files and vicepa will work. It might work, you could just try. > Is there any real benefit to making LOG and DATA be bona fide > partitions on the disk, rather than partitions backed by files? Files are mmapped, so they end up dirtying less memory. Not sure if it is all that more efficient on a BSD system though, since BSD has actual unbuffered raw partition access, where Linux always uses the page cache. > I could also make backups and restore them. One thing I'm not clear > on is that restoring backups seems to make a new readonly volume, and > I don't see how to turn that back into a rw volume like I want. Is Correct, backups make read-only volumes and nobody has yet figured out if it is just a matter of flipping some bit to make them read/write. The alternative is to feed the volume dumps through codadump2tar to make tar archives, but those don't contain ACL information. JanReceived on 2005-06-15 16:56:41