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?
Regards,
Holger
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
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/
