On 2018-12-03 04:22, Tapio Lehtonen wrote:
Out of curiosity, have you experimented with other filesystems? I have
couple relatively large setups (pool at ~ 9 terabytes) with ext4 and
those still crunch backups happily.
Previously I have used EXT4, only problem was once running out of
inodes. But I find it hard to believe XFS with default options would
be so much worse than any other file system with default options.
I performed a number of benchmarks, specifically with BackupPC and a
handful of file systems. My informal results were that XFS was slightly
faster *unless* there was subtle corruption in the filesystem, in which
case, the only remedy seemed to be a complete rebuild of XFS. (The fsck
tools were capable of detecting it, but not repairing it.) I did not
pursue this further, but my point is that it's probably worth forcing a
check of XFS as well as examining your drives for low-level retries if
your write speed is slower than you expect.
_______________________________________________
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/
