It's worth considering a filesystem that supports error
detection/correction such as ZFS... Though to really make use of that
you need to have a machine with ECC RAM. Not sure what all you have for
a layout, but bitflips in backup data can make for a bad time.
Generally speaking I doubt you'll see a massive difference in
performance from one FS to the other when dealing with Bacula. Where you
really notice a difference is things like "deleting a directory with
10,000 files in it" which is one area where EXT* performs very poorly.
That however isn't a use case that you'd encounter with Bacula (or
really any other backup system apart from maybe some sort of rsync-based
setup). Raw sequential read/write performance won't be massively
different one FS to another; at most you're probably talking about a few
percentage points unless you've got something like a badly aligned RAID
array underneath it all. Either way it's usually network bandwidth
that's the bottleneck rather than disk, unless you're trying to do a lot
of simultaneous I/O.
Bryn
On 2015-11-03 12:23 PM, Thing wrote:
Hmm is there any difference in performance between file system types,
ext4 and XFS?
hence why I pondered a re-format.
On 2 November 2015 at 14:36, Randy Katz <rk...@simplicityhosting.com
<mailto:rk...@simplicityhosting.com>> wrote:
Yes, however, formatting the disk is a bit extreme, you can just
go to the designated
directory and remove all the files, if it takes a while you can
background the task:
cd /baculabackupdirectory
nohup rm -f * &
or if you have subdirectories
nohup rm -rf * &
On 11/1/2015 11:01 AM, Thing wrote:
Hi,
Reading the FAQ,
cd <bacula-source>/src/cats
./drop_mysql_tables
./make_mysql_tables
Then just format the disk to wipe the volumes?
Anything else needed to do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
