On Feb 11, 2008 11:13 AM, Chun Kit Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Bruno, > > You mean that xfs will save ACLs and extended data together with the file > instead of meta-data? And without special configuration, Bacula will backup > all these "meta-data" together with the files? > > Let me have a trial later today. > > Cheers, > Jacky > > > > On Feb 11, 2008 10:02 PM, Bruno Friedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Chun Kit Hui wrote: > > > Dear Bruno, > > > > > > But how does the use of XFS help solve the problem on backup of extended > > > attributes using bacula? > > > > > > Jacky > > > > > > > XFS as this attribute inside and are perfectly saved by bacula. So they > are restored also as needed. > > You should give it a try on a xfs partition to see if you get saved and > restored all you need. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Bruno Friedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Ioda-Net Sàrl - www.ioda-net.ch > > 2830 Vellerat - Switzerland > > > > Tél : ++41 32 435 7171 > > Fax : ++41 32 435 7172 > > gsm : ++41 78 802 6760 > > > > C'est Facile et Cool d'Évoluer en ligne : www.cfcel.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users > >
interesting suggestion about xfs, but according to the xfs faq: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#backingupxfs ''' Q: How can I backup a XFS filesystem and ACLs? You can backup a XFS filesystem with utilities like xfsdump(8) and standard tar(1) for standard files. If you want to backup ACLs you will need to use xfsdump, this is the only tool at the moment that supports backing up extended attributes. xfsdump can also be integrated with amanda(8). ''' comments/clarifications about this point would be good. on the current state of linux filesystems: The xfs linux port and support/development going forward is somewhat doubtful. SGI has been paying the devs to do the port, but they're not the healthiest of companies these days. Other people could pick up the ball, but there's no guarantee of that of course. Yes, xfs is in the kernel so it is maintained by the kernel devs, but there are outstanding issues which even the xfs port team says you may not want to use xfs due to. There's a huge compatability layer (for instance), basically to interface xfs to the linux kernel (instead of IRIX). And there are some issues with data corruption with journal playback/fsck under certain circumstances. However, some of these issues have been fixed fairly recently, so you need to check your kernel version/patches etc. The xfs faq linked above hits upon many of the issues, some of them having been addresses only withing the last 6-12 months. reiserfs v3/4 is in a similar boat. development is pretty much suspended, and was never terribly popular with the core kernel devs. ext3 _really_ seems to be the safest bet these days, with ext4 in the future. Wasn't my first choice in filesystems for linux either, but it by far makes the most sense for today and going forward. It's just plain supported the best by far and has a very solid history. I guess the point I'm trying to make is linux has multiple filesystems for a reason: they're not all perfect. -- Noah Dain "The beatings will continue, until morale improves" - the Management ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
