On 28-10-2016 04:56, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
Il 28 ott 2016 01:04, "Adam Goryachev"
<mailingli...@websitemanagers.com.au
<mailto:mailingli...@websitemanagers.com.au>> ha scritto:
> Doing work recently (adding new hosts) I realised that performance on v4
> is hit hard because of a couple of "bugs" (undeveloped sharp edges)
> which makes it do a full fsck on all existing backups after every new
> backup (or partial), and if you have a large number of backups, and/or a
> lot of files on the machines, then this will cause some significant drop
> in performance.
>
This is why I've trashed away backuppc by replacing it with plain
rsnapshot
There was no way to backup 250GB hosts with 4 or 5 millions of files
due to the forced fsck almost every time
Please, I went reading about rsnapshot and it also makes extensive use
of hard-links, does it perform differently than BackupPC about this?
And what file system were you having trouble with? Was it Ext4 as seems
to be recommended?
Alain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
http://sdm.link/telerik
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
