On 2018-03-13 16:33, Holger Parplies wrote:
My first thought is to avoid the issue altogether by using a file system that doesn't statically allocate inodes (e.g. XFS or reiserfs, the latter I wouldn't recommend for other reasons, though; I don't know about ext4, btrfs and ZFS, but my guess would be that ext4 has static allocation and the others dynamic). Why worry about a problem modern file systems simply
don't have?


I happen to have used BackupPC with ext4, xfs, and btrfs. ext4 (unlike ext2 and ext3) does indeed have a way to extend the number of inodes beyond the static allocation. XFS, elegant and well designed, gave me no end of trouble, frankly. Your mileage may vary, but on more than one occasion, I found subtle corruption for unknown reasons had caused weird ripple effects throughout the file system. btrfs has, perhaps ironically, proven the most reliable of the three. Again, your mileage may vary, and while I can go into considerable detail about my own experiences and testing, they are limited in scope and nature.
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
BackupPC-users mailing list
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Reply via email to