Holger Parplies schrieb:
Hi,
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote on 2011-05-26 06:05:48 -0500 [Re:
[BackupPC-users] Best FS for BackupPC]:
On 05/26 12:20 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
BTW, specifically related to backuppc, many years ago, reiserfsck was
perfect as it doesn't have any concept
On 05/26 12:20 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
BTW, specifically related to backuppc, many years ago, reiserfsck was
perfect as it doesn't have any concept or limit on 'inodes'... Same for
mail and news (nntp) servers. Do XFS/JFS have this feature? I'll look
into these things another day, when I have
Hi,
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote on 2011-05-26 06:05:48 -0500 [Re:
[BackupPC-users] Best FS for BackupPC]:
On 05/26 12:20 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
BTW, specifically related to backuppc, many years ago, reiserfsck was
perfect as it doesn't have any concept or limit on 'inodes'... Same
On 24/05/2011 11:25 PM, Michael Stowe wrote:
I did a relatively short filesystem comparison when I moved my BackupPC
pool to another set of drives. The high level results:
jfs, xfs: quick, stable
reiserfs: not stable
ext4: slow
ext3: very slow
The not stable designation
On 5/25/2011 8:40 AM, Michael Stowe wrote:
2) It does sometimes have problems resurrecting the filesystem when it
has been corrupted, I did lose *one* home directory out of 400 once upon
a time (about 9 years ago...)
Like I said, a filesystem that loses data *sometimes* doesn't really
On 5/25/2011 8:40 AM, Michael Stowe wrote:
2) It does sometimes have problems resurrecting the filesystem when it
has been corrupted, I did lose *one* home directory out of 400 once
upon
a time (about 9 years ago...)
Like I said, a filesystem that loses data *sometimes* doesn't really
On 5/25/2011 10:12 AM, Michael Stowe wrote:
To be fair, those sometimes are crash situations and it is also a good
idea to run hardware/operating systems/UPS's, that... don't cause that
problem. And to have an offsite copy for the things you can't control.
I'm not arguing against either
choice - at least up to now.
So I certainly don't disagree with your results, but I do partly disagree with
your reasoning and interpretations.
Michael Stowe wrote on 2011-05-25 08:40:10 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Best FS
for BackupPC]:
[Adam wrote:]
On 24/05/2011 11:25 PM, Michael Stowe
So I certainly don't disagree with your results, but I do partly disagree
with your reasoning and interpretations.
Err, actually, you don't ... or perhaps more accurately, I don't disagree
with any of the points you make, so rather than agree with everything you
said individually, I'll skip
On 5/25/2011 1:46 PM, Michael Stowe wrote:
I'm really suggesting that the experience of somebody who has run a file
system for a period of time without (for example) a power failure is
likely to have little to contribute to answer the question on how stable a
file system is during a power
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My only other comment I forgot to make in my original response, were the
same options enabled for each of the tested filesystems.
Some filesystems by default enable data and metadata journalling, while
others require an option to enable this (AFAIK).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26/05/11 04:59, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 5/25/2011 1:46 PM, Michael Stowe wrote:
I'm really suggesting that the experience of somebody who has run a file
system for a period of time without (for example) a power failure is
likely to have little
Hi everyone,
I'm doing some benchmarks with BackupPC and I wanted to ask
here about the filesystems you are using and why.
Which one do you think is best for BackupPC?
I saw on the documentation that some users found Reiser is better than
ext3:
[docu]
Several users have reported
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Lorenzo de Santiago [mailto:mlore...@andago.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:53 AM
To: BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [BackupPC-users] Best FS for BackupPC
I'm doing some benchmarks with BackupPC and I wanted to ask
here about
I did a relatively short filesystem comparison when I moved my BackupPC
pool to another set of drives. The high level results:
jfs, xfs: quick, stable
reiserfs: not stable
ext4: slow
ext3: very slow
The not stable designation comes from power-off-during-write tests.
Other
Michael Stowe wrote at about 08:25:35 -0500 on Tuesday, May 24, 2011:
I did a relatively short filesystem comparison when I moved my BackupPC
pool to another set of drives. The high level results:
jfs, xfs: quick, stable
reiserfs: not stable
ext4: slow
ext3: very
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Marcos Lorenzo de Santiago
mlore...@andago.com wrote:
Which one do you think is best for BackupPC?
One of the main reasons I like xfs is the tool xfs_copy. This will
allow you to copy a backuppc pool filesystem quickly and efficiently.
BackupPC pools have too
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey J. Kosowsky [mailto:backu...@kosowsky.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:59 PM
To: mst...@chicago.us.mensa.org; General list for user discussion,
questions and
support
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Best FS for BackupPC
Any idea which particular file
Tod Detre tod.de...@maine.edu wrote on 05/24/2011 09:48:07 AM:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Marcos Lorenzo de Santiago
mlore...@andago.com wrote:
Which one do you think is best for BackupPC?
One of the main reasons I like xfs is the tool xfs_copy. This will
allow you to copy a
yTod Detre tod.de...@maine.edu wrote [9:48am -0400]
TD On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Marcos Lorenzo de Santiago
TD mlore...@andago.com wrote:
TD
TD Which one do you think is best for BackupPC?
TD
TD One of the main reasons I like xfs is the tool xfs_copy. This will
Michael Stowe wrote at about 08:25:35 -0500 on Tuesday, May 24, 2011:
I did a relatively short filesystem comparison when I moved my BackupPC
pool to another set of drives. The high level results:
jfs, xfs: quick, stable
reiserfs: not stable
ext4: slow
ext3:
21 matches
Mail list logo
