Hi there, On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 1:02 PM Andrew Maksymowsky wrote:
I have no strong preference for either xfs or zfs (our team is comfortable with either) was mainly just curious to hear about what folks were using and if they've run into any major issues or found particular file-system features they really like when coupled with backuppc.
Data volumes of the systems I back up approach those with which you're working, and I have had no issues with ext4. Being very conservative about filesystem choice now (after a disastrous outing with ReiserFS, a little over a decade ago) I haven't yet taken the plunge with any of the more modern filesystems. It's probably past time for me to put a toe in the water once more, but there are always more pressing issues and I *really* don't need another episode like that with Reiser. At one time I routinely used to modify the BackupPC GUI to display the ext4 inode usage on BackupPC systems, but happily I no longer need to do that. :) Although I'd have said my systems tend to have lots of small files, typically they're only using a few percent of inode capacity at a few tens % of storage capacity; I have no clue what the fragmentation is like, and likely won't unless something bites me. There's no RAID here at all, but there are LVMs, so snapshots became possible whatever the filesystem. Although at one time I thought I'd be using snapshots a lot, and sometimes did, now I seem not to bother with them. Large databases tend to be few in number and can probably be backed up better using the tools provided by the database system itself; directories containing database files and VMs are specifically excluded in my BackupPC configurations; some routine data collection like security camera video is treated specially in the config too, and what's left is largely configuration and users' home directories. All machines run Linux or similar, thankfully no Windows boxes any more. Just to state one possibly obvious point, the ability to prevent the filesystem used by BackupPC from writing access times would probably be important to most, although I'm aware that you're interested more in the reliability of the system and this is a performance issue. On 1GBit/s networks I see backup data rates ranging from 20MByte/s for a full backup to 3GByte/s for an incremental. Obviously the network is not the bottleneck and from that point of view I think the filesystem probably doesn't matter; you're looking at CPU, I/O (think SSDs?) and very likely RAM too, e.g. for rsync transfers which can be surprising. HTH -- 73, Ged. _______________________________________________ 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/
