Holger Parplies wrote at about 19:31:14 +0200 on Sunday, July 3, 2011:
> While the comments in config.pl state
>
> # This can be set to a string, an array of strings, or, in the case
> # of multiple shares, a hash of strings or arrays.
>
> that is actually incorrect. A hash of strings mak
On 7/3/11 12:31 PM, Holger Parplies wrote:
>
> unless I missed something, I'd say XFS is perfectly stable - more stable than
> reiserfs in any case. The only thing that makes me hesitate with that
> statement
> is Les' remark "XFS should also be OK on 64-bit systems" - why only on 64 bit
> systems
Holger Parplies wrote:
> unless I missed something, I'd say XFS is perfectly stable - more stable than
> reiserfs in any case. The only thing that makes me hesitate with that
> statement
> is Les' remark "XFS should also be OK on 64-bit systems" - why only on 64 bit
I thought the same thing. I'm
Hi,
C. Ronoz wrote on 2011-06-30 12:54:44 +0200 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Yet another
filesystem thread]:
> [...]
> >> - How stable is XFS?
unless I missed something, I'd say XFS is perfectly stable - more stable than
reiserfs in any case. The only thing that makes me hesitate wi
On 6/30/2011 9:09 AM, C. Ronoz wrote:
>
> I see how you use excludes to exclude back-ups of files with specific
> extensions, but then how do I now exclude specific paths per host?
>
> I am planning to back-up about 15 Linux webservers with different roles. Some
> host specific archives that take
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:09 AM, C. Ronoz wrote:
> I see how you use excludes to exclude back-ups of files with specific
> extensions, but then how do I now exclude specific paths per host?
Well, it's not file specific. Some of those are directories.
On a per host basis you just override the sy
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 07:56:59AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:54 AM, C. Ronoz wrote:
> > I found out that BackupPC is ignoring my Excludes though, while I have a
> > 15GB /pub partition.
> > This could explain why the run takes longer, but it should still finish
> > w
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:54 AM, C. Ronoz wrote:
> I found out that BackupPC is ignoring my Excludes though, while I have a 15GB
> /pub partition.
> This could explain why the run takes longer, but it should still finish
> within an hour?
> Rsnapshot runs were always lightning fast, network is 1
>> What filesystem should I use? It seems ext4 and reiserfs are the only viable
>> options. I just hate the slowness of ext3 for rm -rf hardlink jobs, while
>> xfs and btrfs seem to be very unstable.
>>
>> - How stable is XFS?
>> - Is reiserfs (much) better at hard-link removal?
>> - Is reiserfs
On 6/29/2011 9:31 AM, C. Ronoz wrote:
> What filesystem should I use? It seems ext4 and reiserfs are the only viable
> options. I just hate the slowness of ext3 for rm -rf hardlink jobs, while xfs
> and btrfs seem to be very unstable.
>
> - How stable is XFS?
> - Is reiserfs (much) better at hard
C. Ronoz wrote at about 16:31:33 +0200 on Wednesday, June 29, 2011:
> What filesystem should I use? It seems ext4 and reiserfs are the only viable
> options. I just hate the slowness of ext3 for rm -rf hardlink jobs, while
> xfs and btrfs seem to be very unstable.
>
> - How stable is XFS?
On 6/29/2011 10:31 AM, C. Ronoz wrote:
> What filesystem should I use? It seems ext4 and reiserfs are the only viable
> options. I just hate the slowness of ext3 for rm -rf hardlink jobs, while xfs
> and btrfs seem to be very unstable.
>
> - How stable is XFS?
> - Is reiserfs (much) better at har
What filesystem should I use? It seems ext4 and reiserfs are the only viable
options. I just hate the slowness of ext3 for rm -rf hardlink jobs, while xfs
and btrfs seem to be very unstable.
- How stable is XFS?
- Is reiserfs (much) better at hard-link removal?
- Is reiserfs (much) less stable c
13 matches
Mail list logo
