On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 01 December 2008 11:49:46 Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have "lots of >> filesystems". why don't just make one or one per disk? > > For all the usual reasons: faster fsck, ability to set attributes on each > filesystem (noexec, noatime, ro), a runaway process writing to /tmp won't > cause > problems in /var, etc. > > A big local reason is that Amanda is much easier to configure when you're > using > a bunch of filesystems because it runs tar with --one-file-system set. If > /var > is separate from / and I want to back them up separately, I just tell Amanda > to dump / and /var. If /var is part of / then I have to say "dump / except > for /var (and /tmp and /usr and ...)".
Why don't you use the ZFS backup tools: snapshots, zfs send | receive (this in case you have a second box with zfs) or zfs send | [ tar | gzip | bzip ] to compress the snapshot and do whatever you want with it. The snapshots backup file system (data sets) and it's ultra fast: # du -h /home/user 20G /home/user # time zfs snapshot tank/home/[EMAIL PROTECTED] zfs snapshot tank/home/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.855 total Now the compression will take a little more but you get the idea. a great day, v > >> i have one per disk/mirror configuration everywhere except one place where >> i made separate filesystem for /var/spool/squid for some reasons. > > Oh, there are definitely advantages to that setup. It just complicates > certain > admin functions (see above). With something like ZFS that makes creating new > filesystems trivially easy, they're nice to use. > >> tell me what's your needs and how many/what disks you have. > > Right now I have a 750GB (with another on order) and a 320GB. The box is a > multi-purpose home server with mail, several websites, and a bunch of local > file streaming (from MP3 and ripped DVDs to Apple's Time Machine storage). > >> UFS is best-performer on real load, runs on almost no RAM, but uses more >> if available for caching. > > That's my main beef with ZFS at the moment. I don't mind if it uses a lot of > RAM - that's what I bought it for! - but that it doesn't seem to use it > effectively (at least on my workload). > > - Kirk > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"