BackupPC-users

Re: [BackupPC-users] No more free inodes

2012-10-08 09:03:25
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] No more free inodes
From: Frédéric Massot <frederic AT juliana-multimedia DOT com>
To: backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:01:33 +0200
Le 08/10/2012 13:47, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom a écrit :
> On 10/08 11:07 , Frédéric Massot wrote:
>> After moving the BackupPC data on the new logical volume and thus the
>> new file system, the old logical volume will no longer be used. I could
>> delete it but how I could use this free space?
>
> Expand your new volume and filesystem to use it.
> Are you using LVM, or just plain partitions?

Yes, I use LVM on MD.

I thought I would increase the size of the new file system, but my 
concern is not having the same problem with a lack of inode in a few years.

 From what I've read, if I chose XFS instead of ext4, I would not have 
this problem of lack of inode.


>> Does with XFS the inode number increases with increasing file system size?
>
> XFS doesn't really have a problem with inodes.
>
>> Some people use XFS on Debian without problem?
>
> I've used it for some years. If you do use XFS, make sure you have enough
> space in RAM+swap to accomodate the xfs_check tool, which is notoriously
> memory-hungry. My suggested filesystem layout is something like:
>
> 30GB /, using ext4

10 Gb for /, using ext4, 26% used

4 GB RAM, I'll add more RAM for XFS

> 10GB swap

4 GB swap on logical volume, with new disks I will increase the size of 
the swap.

> remainder of space in a separate partition mounted on /var/lib/backuppc.

BackupPC data are already in their own logical volume.  :o)


> I've found I needed a good 5GB or more swapfile to accomodate fscking a 9TB
> filesystem; but that's only the rougest metric. So I'll suggest 10GB of
> swap. It seems like a horrible waste of space since most will never be used;
> but compared to a multi-TB filesystem its vanishingly small, and it
> simplifies the process when you fsck your XFS filesystem (which shouldn't be
> necessary; but hardware does fail, and when you have hardware errors,
> sometimes you need to fsck).

Thank you for the rule of thumb.


-- 
==============================================
|              FRÉDÉRIC MASSOT               |
|     http://www.juliana-multimedia.com      |
|   mailto:frederic AT juliana-multimedia DOT com   |
| +33.(0)2.97.54.77.94  +33.(0)6.67.19.95.69 |
===========================Debian=GNU/Linux===

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
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/