On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 10:42:25PM -0400, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: > The files are generally a few hundred KB each. They may run into a few MB > but that's about it. > I use to use ReiserFS back in the days of ext2/3 but it kind of fell out of > favor after the lead developer got sent away for murder. > Reiser was much faster and more reliable than ext at the time. > It would actually be interesting to see if running a reiserfs or btrfs > filesystem would actually make a significant difference but in the long run > I am kind of stuck with Centos/RH supported file systems and reiser and > btrfs are not part of that mix anymore.
ReiserFS was not reliable. I certainly stopped using it long before the developer issues happened. The silent file content loss was just unacceptable. And it wasn't a rare occurance. I saw it on many systems many times. ext2 and 3 you could at least trust with your data even if they were quite a bit slower. Certainly these days RHEL supports ext2/3/4 and XFS (their default and preferred). I use ext4 because it works well. GlusterFS defaults to XFS and while technically it can use other filesystems (and many people do run ext4 on it apparently) I don't believe they support that setup. > I am not sure how much I can get by tweaking the filesystem. > I would need to get a 50x -100x improvement to make backups complete in a > few hours. > Most stuff I have read comparing various filesystems and performance are > talking about percentage differences that is much less than 100%. > > I have a feeling that the only answer will be something like Veeam where > only changed blocks are backed up. > A directory tree walk just takes too long. Well, does the system have enough ram? That is something that often isn't hard to increase. XFS has certainly in the past been known to require a fair bit of ram to manage well. -- Len Sorensen --- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
