On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Bill Bogstad wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Dan Ritter <d...@randomstring.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:54:36PM -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
As for documentation/query tools for multiple families of filesystems,
I don't recall seeing anything.
It doesn't exist. I do not think it would be reasonable to have it exist.
btrfs RAID1 does not mean the same thing as LVM RAID1 or mdadm RAID1, and
a flag on a filesystem can't tell you that it's stored on hardware RAID1.
[lots more examples of filesystem differences]
I understand the difficulty of this; but when it comes to program
visible differences (ownership models, ACLs, attributes, etc.), I find
it frustrating that even there there isn't as much as I think there
should be. There seems to be little coordination between developers
of filesystems and of backup software.
There is almost always NO coordination between developers of filesystems and
backup software. The one exception is that sometimes the developers of the
filesystems create a low-level filesystem dump/restore tool
I am never sure if I can
backup and restore the more advanced semantics of modern filesystems.
As a result, my tendency
is to stick to the 1980s POSIX model. Admittedly my recent
experience is 100% Linux, are things any better in the *BSD or Solaris
world? i.e. Do filesystem developers "bless" backup software as
being
100% able to backup/restore all of the features they implement?
In those worlds, there isn't a wide variety of filesystems, and the
backup/restore software either targets the default filesystem, or it targets the
POSIX features and ignores anything else.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
Tech@lists.lopsa.org
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
