you do have the option of testing it both ways! use nfs with the mount
options -async as suggested in another post and try usb and see what works
best
On Dec 10, 2007 9:01 AM, Paul Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 9:55am, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > dan wrote:
> >> Since you have that option, I would suggest you use the USB. nfs isn't
> >> really very good with backuppc as a file pool.
> >>
> >> the more files you have, the more the nfs is going to slow you down.
> >> USB wont be so bad but wont compare to a sata, ide, or scsi drive in
> IO.
> >
> > Usually the slowdown with NFS comes from the sync option which forces
> > the server to flush every write to disk before reporting status,
> > something that isn't required on local writes. If the NFS server is on
> > a UPS and has a reliable OS and network, using the async option should
> > not be much more of a risk than writing to local drives.
> >
> > --
>
> sync is an issue with NFS primarily because of the multiple access nature
> of
> the protocol (many clients accessing the same fs). But using it
> exclusively for backuppc eliminates that issue.
>
> Paul
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
