Re: Storage server
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:50:04PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 05:44:46PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Which is why I recommend XFS. It is exceptionally fast at
> > traversing large btrees. You'll need the 3.2 bpo kernel for
> > Squeeze. The old as dirt 2.6.32 kernel doesn't contain any of the
> > recent (last 3 years) metadata optimizations.
>
> Yes. You are becoming a bit of a broken record on that front :)
>
> I have not performed any such timings but I am willing to believe you
> that XFS will be faster. I'd still not recommend rsnapshot, because
> faster merely mitigates the big design flaw, it does not remove it,
> and rdiff-backup is virtually a drop-in replacement.
>
Can you please explain what design flaw is that? Isn't directory with
complete backup (but not occupying that much space due to hard links
usage) very usable for backup? If slow work can be avoided by the use of
XFS, what would be wrong about rsnapshot?
Regards,
Veljko
Reply to: