If the disk usage is the same as before the pool, the issue isnt hardlinks not being maintained. I am not convinced that XFS is an ideal filesystem. I'm sure it has it's merits, but I have lost data on 3 filesystems ever, FAT*, XFS and NTFS. I have never lost data on reiserfs3 or ext2,3.
Additionally, I am not convinced that it performs any better than ext3 in real world workloads. I have see many comparisons showing XFS marginally faster in some operations, and much faster for file deletions and a few other things, but these are all simulated workloads and I have never seen a comparison running all of these various operations in mixed operation. how about mixing 100MB random reads with 10MB sequential writes on small files and deleting 400 hardlinks? I say switch back to ext3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
