dan schrieb: (...)
> I suggest you try reiserfs and see how it treats you. running linux, > you dont really have any other options other than ext3, reiserfs, or > xfs. zfs is very very good at small files and hardlink operations but > would need to run on fuse on linux and you would likely see a net > decrease in performance because of the un-tuned fuse zfs code. > > in my tests, zfs is really the best filesystem for backuppc but you will > need to run *solaris or freebsd current to use it effectively. this > mailing list seems to be dominated by linux users but freebsd is a great > server OS and is a great choice for backuppc PLUS you get ZFS. UFS in > bsd or solaris is also pretty good but it is a little slower than ext3 > for small disk ops such as directory creation and file deletion. Why should any filesystem perform seeks better (when writing) than any other filesystem? I imagine it could be true only if: - kernel would cache a large amount of writes - kernel would commit these writes not in a FIFO manner, but whenever it sees that the blocks on the underlying device are close to each other Can ZFS do it? -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ 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/
