|
Re: [BackupPC-users] What file system do you use?
2013-12-16 14:43:18
Mark Rosedale <mrosedale AT vivox DOT com> wrote on 12/16/2013
09:06:07 AM:
> I'm working on bringing back a backuppc instance. It is very large
3
> +TB. The issue I'm having is e2fsck is taking an extremely long time
> to finish. It is stuck on the checking directory structure. We are
> going on 48 hours.
How much RAM do you have? This can make a very
large difference. a 3+TB drive can need 4GB or more to complete in
a reasonable amount of time.
> So I'm wondering what other file systems do you guys use? Any
> recommendations of one that may be more efficient or better suited
> for such a large volume on Bakcuppc? Because once I have this
> machine back up I'm actually going to add more drives.
I use EXT3 because I'm conservative. I've had
problems with EXT4 crashing more often than EXT3 in the event of flaky
hardware. Make no mistake: the fault was the hardware, but
I found that EXT3 was much more tolerant of that (or EXT4 more sensitive).
I have limited experience with XFS. I have lots
of experience with JFS (both on Linux and as a long-time OS/2 user in the
past: that's where the Linux JFS filesystem came from), but given
its relatively small visibility I stay away from it in backup scenarios.
So for me, it's humble EXT3 and recently a couple
of EXT4 servers. That is getting to be a problem, though: I
already have a couple of servers where I have had to partition the server
into separate partitions because of the 16TB limit with EXT3 (and the practical
16TB limit with EXT4 and user-space tools).
Reference for RHEL file size limits as of September,
2013: https://access.redhat.com/site/solutions/1532
. That link has this interesting tidbit: "The solution for large
filesystems is to use XFS. The XFS file system is specifically targeted
at very large file systems (16 TB and above)."
Red Hat has already dropped JFS support in the installer,
and I understand that XFS will be the default in RHEL7. It has a
certified limit in RHEL of 100TB. It's also telling that their "Scalable
File System" add-on uses XFS...
In the past, XFS always seemed to be the second choice
of people who were not happy with the default: 'I use ReiserFS/Reiser4/JFS/Btrfs/Whatever
because it does [insert narrow, specific need], but if it weren't for that,
XFS would have been the best choice...' It always seemed to be a
bridesmaid for most everyone. It seems that Red Hat is finally going
to make it a bride...
One last thing: everyone who uses ZFS raves
about it. But seeing as (on Linux) you're limited to either FUSE
or out-of-tree kernel modules (of questionable legality: ZFS' CDDL
license is *not* GPL compatible), it's not my first choice for a backup
server, either.
Tim Massey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
|
|
|
