On Thu 10 Aug 2023 at 15:52:02 (-0700), Bob McGowan wrote: > On 8/10/23 03:03 PM, Nicolas George wrote: > > Default User (12023-08-10): > > > > > And, if /lost+found should be excluded, then shouldn't "lost+found" > > > > > in any other directories be excluded from backups as well? Why/why > > > > > not? > > > Unfortunately, I regret to say that I did not find that the answer to > > > the question(s) about lost+found in the original post were contained in > > > the explanation(s) of its function - at least in what I have read so > > > far. > > The lost+found directory at the root of the filesystem is special, it is > > created when the filesystem is created and set up to receive orphaned > > files. A lost+found directory elsewhere… is just a directory with a > > wacky name. > > > Almost but not quite completely true. > > If you have more than one filesystem on your host, they may also have > lost+found directories which will show up in their mount points. > > For example, with your home on a separate disk, mounted on /home, > there may be a /home/lost+found. > > The same thinking applies to them as to /lost+found.
But /home/lost+found is still called /lost+found on the filesystem it belongs to; it's only now called /home/lost+found because you mounted that filesystem on /home. That's why Nicolas wrote "at the root of the filesystem"; that's any filesystem (that uses the concept). The OP should also note that you musn't use mkdir to create such directories: mklost+found should be used instead. Typically it pre-allocates space so that fsck doesn't have to disturb the rest of the filesystem when it runs. Cheers, David.