1 |
Reply inline |
2 |
|
3 |
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 21:06 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: |
4 |
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 10:31:42AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > I use "dirvish" for backups which creates a LOT of hardlinks which can |
7 |
> > be very hard on a file system. ext2 typically lasts only a few cycles, |
8 |
> > while ext3 is only a little better even with full journalling. Coupled |
9 |
> > to the fact neither is very good with power cuts and they are a worst |
10 |
> > case choice for data security :) |
11 |
|
12 |
> Am I mis-understanding or are you mis-speaking? hardlinks != backup |
13 |
> A hardlink is simply another pointer to the same tracks/sectors on disk. |
14 |
> If the on-disk data is destroyed it doesn't matter how many pointers you |
15 |
> have to the data, it's gone. A real backup is another copy of the data |
16 |
> on another drive, preferably external. |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
Yes you have misunderstood, check out http://www.dirvish.org/. Basicly |
20 |
the first backup (--init) is a complete copy of the source into either a |
21 |
local disk or remote storage. Subsequent backups create a new image, by |
22 |
checking if the previous copy of a file/directory/whatever has changed |
23 |
and if not it will create a hardlink, but if changed will make a new |
24 |
copy. So you can have full, daily backups using typically only 2x the |
25 |
original space for many versioned backups. As only changed files are |
26 |
copied, its only changes that use "real" space. |
27 |
|
28 |
Restore is just copy the version back you want. Full OS restore is done |
29 |
in a similar fashion to copying one system to another (i.e., cloned from |
30 |
the image). |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
> > Reiserfs3 by contrast is very very good, with only a few instances of |
35 |
> > problems over many years (since beore 3 was even in the kernel) - none |
36 |
> > of which have lost critical data or file systems (ext2/3 devs, are you |
37 |
> > listening :) |
38 |
> |
39 |
> I don't think ext2fs is being developed as such. And ext3fs is mostly |
40 |
> a journalling system backported to ext2fs. ext2fs was written way back |
41 |
> when in January 1993, and the specs were uptodate for then, but our |
42 |
> expectations, and disk sizes have grown since then. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> > So, for me at least, btrfs is looking like the way forward. Its in |
45 |
> > "testing" at the moment, but I am ready to move whole systems over |
46 |
> > to it. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> I'm on reiserfs3 for now. Hopefully, it'll be maintained until ext4 |
49 |
> or btrfs or whatever is deemed ready for primetime. When that happens, |
50 |
> I'll do any new installs on the new filesystem. If it works, don't muck |
51 |
> around with it. Unless support/maintenance for reiserfs3 is dropped or |
52 |
> a new fs comes out with a feature I really want/need, I won't migrate |
53 |
> existing systems. |
54 |
> |
55 |
Exactly, I have had great service from reiserfs3, but fscking terrabytes |
56 |
of storage is becoming a serious limitation when it means taking a |
57 |
system offline to do so. That being said, I only do it every 6 months |
58 |
or so as a precaution rather than the expectation of finding something |
59 |
wrong - and haven't unless it was an actual disk failure (that one was |
60 |
at least 18 months ago. |
61 |
|
62 |
BillK |