On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:33:13 +0100 Harald Arnesen <har...@skogtun.org> wrote:
> Den 28.12.2017 01:51, skrev Steve Litt: > > > The one downfall of my method is if you absolutely, positively need > > atomic backups: database files, for instance. You'd need to stop > > work on the computer being backed up. In the case of my Daily Driver > > Desktop, which contains 3,874,727 files, the entire backup takes > > about 5 minutes, the last 1.5 minutes of which is the cp -al phase, > > during which the computer being backed up can go an about its > > business. > > Had you used btrfs instead, you could make a snapshot of your file > system. Hi Harald, That's exactly my point. To do something better than my backup solution, I would have needed to go with something less tested, with less complete supporting software, and something I trust less than ext4. I haven't had ext4 mess up on me in at least 6 years. Even ext2 and ext3 messed up very rarely, and you could usually fix them with an fsck. In other words, I prioritized the extreme amount of user testing of ext4 over the obvious convenience of btrfs. My prioritization isn't universal: In fact, I'm probably in the minority. But it's worked for me. SteveT Steve Litt December 2017 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
