[GTALUG] On the subject of backups.
Alvin Starr
alvin at netvel.net
Wed May 6 07:16:12 EDT 2020
On 5/5/20 11:27 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> 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.
>
This is a nice example of YMMV.
I moved my critical data from ext2/3 because they would trash my data
and corrupt the whole filesystem under certain cases.
I had much better luck with Reiser even in the face of a couple of
system crashes.
>> 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.
>
The system has 32G and runs nothing but gluster.
Not sure if that is enough ram and will require a bit of researching.
It looks like the system has about 15G of cached data.
--
Alvin Starr || land: (647)478-6285
Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133
alvin at netvel.net ||
More information about the talk
mailing list