On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Chris Robertson <crobertson AT gci DOT net> wrote:

dan wrote:
> If the disk usage is the same as before the pool, the issue isnt
> hardlinks not being maintained.  I am not convinced that XFS is an
> ideal filesystem.  I'm sure it has it's merits, but I have lost data
> on 3 filesystems ever, FAT*, XFS and NTFS.  I have never lost data on
> reiserfs3 or ext2,3.
>
> Additionally, I am not convinced that it performs any better than ext3
> in real world workloads.  I have see many comparisons showing XFS
> marginally faster in some operations, and much faster for file
> deletions and a few other things, but these are all simulated
> workloads and I have never seen a comparison running all of these
> various operations in mixed operation.  how about mixing 100MB random
> reads with 10MB sequential writes on small files and deleting 400
> hardlinks?
>
> I say switch back to ext3.

Creating or resizing (you do a proper fsck before and after resizing,
don't you?) an ext3 filesystem greater than about 50GB is painful.  The
larger the filesystem, the more painful it gets.  Having to guess the
number of inodes you are going to need at filesystem creation is a nice
bonus.

EXT4, btrfs, or Tux3 can't get here (and stable!) fast enough.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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/