On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Mike Dresser
<mdresser_l AT windsormachine DOT com> wrote:
>
> Either way, the system keeps up with backups, so performance wasn't much
> of an issue, I just plain ran out of space on the old array.
>
> Also, with 6-8 drives, I can lose any two, vs the remote possibility of
> losing the wrong two on Raid10, as touched on by other replies.

In theory you can lose 2 drives, but even with one there will be a
large performance hit as missing data has to be reconstructed from
parity and a larger one when you rebuild on the replacement drive(s).
 Will that matter?  Raid 1 or 10 will still run at full speed with a
missing mirror.

> I'm still looking forward to backuppc 4.x with its removal of
> hardlinks.. there's nearly 14 million directories and 150 million
> hardlinks on this array and that definitely slows the system down.

Hardlinks shouldn't slow anything down unless you need to traverse
them, which you usually don't.  Having related directories/inodes/file
blocks near each other would help speed-wise but it's not clear how a
different de-dup method would improve that.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
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/