Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+FS\s+and\s+backuppc\s+performance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+FS\s+and\s+backuppc\s+performance\s*$/: 6 ]

Total 6 documents matching your query.

1. [BackupPC-users] FS and backuppc performance (score: 1): Author: "Pedro M. S. Oliveira" <pmsoliveira AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:48:33 +0000; Hi all! I'm running backuppc in several installations and sites and i'm very pleased with it, one of the sites has more than 3TB compressed data and about 6.000.000 files. Backupps run very well fast; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-03/msg00145.html (14,634 bytes)
2. Re: [BackupPC-users] FS and backuppc performance (score: 1): Author: Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <chrome AT real-time DOT com>; Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:30:33 -0500; I typically use XFS for backuppc data pools, and ext3 for the root filesystem. I don't want to run out of inodes like ext3 can do. :) -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises ww; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-03/msg00150.html (12,424 bytes)
3. Re: [BackupPC-users] FS and backuppc performance (score: 1): Author: "Pedro M. S. Oliveira" <pmsoliveira AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:56:18 +0000; -- -- Pedro M. S. Oliveira IT Consultant Email: pmsoliveira AT gmail DOT com URL: http://pedro.linux-geex.com Cellular: +351 96 5867227 -- -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex B; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-03/msg00154.html (14,165 bytes)
4. Re: [BackupPC-users] FS and backuppc performance (score: 1): Author: Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom <chrome AT real-time DOT com>; Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:56:32 -0500; The ability to be resized while mounted is good as well; tho I don't use it much. There may be a performance improvement over ext3; tho it's very hard to say. (Backuppc is a fairly unusual load situa; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-03/msg00156.html (13,493 bytes)
5. Re: [BackupPC-users] FS and backuppc performance (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:27:18 -0500; One thing I think is missing from backuppc that amanda has had for years is a concept of grouping (or excluding...) by network connectivity. I have a mix of local and remote targets and would like to; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-03/msg00158.html (13,025 bytes)
6. Re: [BackupPC-users] FS and backuppc performance (score: 1): Author: stoffell <stoffell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:35:42 +0100; 2009/3/18 Pedro M. S. Oliveira <pmsoliveira AT gmail DOT com>: We use XFS on a 3-disk raid 5 (3x500gb). Just because we're used to using XFS and it performs well with a lot of small files. cheers sto; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-03/msg00160.html (12,546 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 6
Page: [1]