[SOLVED] What are appropriate filesystem options for backups?
Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
What are appropriate filesystem options for backups?
Hi all,
I have just purchased a 1 TB external hard disk to be used for backups. The backups will be performed with rsync and since I don't really care about accessing the data from other operating systems, I think I'll use ext3 on the partition. I'll just be backing up my home directory and probably /etc as well. In my home directory, I have a small number of files that are several GB, but most are tens of MB in size or less.
I'm just wondering if there are any special options I should pass when I create the filesystem with mkfs.ext3.
Distribution: Debian /Jessie/Stretch/Sid, Linux Mint DE
Posts: 5,195
Rep:
I used XFS in exactly the same situation simply because I hate the long mkfs process for ext3. XFS is (according to the documentation) a filesystem suitable for huge disks. XFS has performed perfectly, both on internal and external hard disks.
Having said that, XFS is quite old, ancient not to say. I haven't seen disadvantages in various documentations, but still there seemed the need for many successors, like Reiser, etx3 and now ext4. XFS is journalling as well of course.
I used XFS in exactly the same situation simply because I hate the long mkfs process for ext3. XFS is (according to the documentation) a filesystem suitable for huge disks. XFS has performed perfectly, both on internal and external hard disks.
Having said that, XFS is quite old, ancient not to say. I haven't seen disadvantages in various documentations, but still there seemed the need for many successors, like Reiser, etx3 and now ext4. XFS is journalling as well of course.
jlinkels
Hmm, I assume it's going to take ages to create a 1 TB ext3 filesystem. However, since it only has to be done once, maybe it's not much of an issue . Are there any other advantages of XFS, then, or would you recommend sticking with ext3/4?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro
On one hand I'd almost say to consider -m option but I have never used it so ...
Interesting. I suppose it can't hurt and avoiding fragmentation seems like a good thing..
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.