Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread George N. White III
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 10/12/2016 08:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote: > >> It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case. >> > > > I suggest that users evaluate their options under their own workload. > When I ran tests last year on

Re: Screen rapidly blanking on and off

2016-10-12 Thread Roberto Ragusa
On 10/11/2016 08:19 PM, Tim Evans wrote: > On 10/11/2016 10:55 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >> In my case I see instants of black screen on a Lenovo P50 with >> Fedora 24, using Intel graphics. >> >> Looks like a refresh problem, or maybe something related to switching >> the panel to the right gfx

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Gordon Messmer
On 10/12/2016 06:40 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: "Never needs fsck"? What crazy alternate reality do you live in? It's only slightly exaggerated. XFS has online fsck, which means that the kernel can fix some errors as it encounters them. Others... well, I *have* seen XFS require an

Alt tab with 2+ monitors

2016-10-12 Thread Cássio Pereira
So, Ubuntu handles alt+tab correctly when you have more than one monitor. It displays the app switcher on the window you're currently active on. Fedora always displays the app switcher on the primary monitor. Any way to display it on all monitors or, ideally, only on the one you're currently

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Michael Cronenworth
On 10/10/2016 04:58 PM, c...@zip.com.au wrote: Use XFS. It is stable; never needs fsck. If ext4 needs to repair it will take days/weeks on a filesystem that size, and need insane amounts of RAM (if the NAS is hosting this, it may not have much RAM). Both will work until you need to fsck (eg

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Gordon Messmer
On 10/12/2016 08:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote: It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case. I suggest that users evaluate their options under their own workload. When I ran tests last year on CentOS 7 for rsnapshot storing maildirs (the exact workload in question here), ext4 was

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread cs
On 12Oct2016 08:40, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 10/12/2016 06:40 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: "Never needs fsck"? What crazy alternate reality do you live in? It's only slightly exaggerated. XFS has online fsck, which means that the kernel can fix some errors as it

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread cs
On 12Oct2016 09:40, Mike Wright wrote: On 10/12/2016 08:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 10.10.2016, Gordon Messmer wrote: Ext4 is probably a better option for a filesystem with a large number of small files. XFS continues to be slower for metadata operations. It

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Heinz Diehl
On 10.10.2016, Gordon Messmer wrote: > Ext4 is probably a better option for a filesystem with a large number of > small files. XFS > continues to be slower for metadata operations. It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case. ___ users

Re: Filesystem for backup system

2016-10-12 Thread Mike Wright
On 10/12/2016 08:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote: On 10.10.2016, Gordon Messmer wrote: Ext4 is probably a better option for a filesystem with a large number of small files. XFS continues to be slower for metadata operations. It was, some years ago. This is no longer the case. Given those, would