LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Server (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-server-73/)
-   -   FileSystem for backups (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-server-73/filesystem-for-backups-818781/)

ametedinov 07-08-2010 06:03 PM

FileSystem for backups
 
With so many filesystems available which one should I use to make backups? All I care about is reliability and stability. I don't care at all about portability.

archangel_617b 07-08-2010 06:25 PM

Your OS default as this will be both most tested and also require the least configuration during maintenance or recovery.

ametedinov 07-08-2010 06:32 PM

This doesn't really help because I still haven't decided what OS to use. Furthermore, many of the OSes allow you to chose among a few filesysems.

archangel_617b 07-08-2010 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ametedinov (Post 4027764)
This doesn't really help because I still haven't decided what OS to use. Furthermore, many of the OSes allow you to chose among a few filesysems.

Well, since I would never pick an OS based on what it's default file system is, I'd still say pick your OS and stick with the default file system.

Generally, on the server-side, you're looking at ext3. It's robust, it's been around, unless you have some specific performance characteristics or features you're looking for, it does quite well. Or you could use "xfs" which is another good option, but not as widely used with Linux distributions.

Elv13 07-08-2010 06:56 PM

Not really Linux, but OSS anyway. ZFS on OpenSolaris is quite good. You can enable compression to save space on your drive, make "apple time machine" like backup, where you can restore earlier version or a file or directory and have software RAID scheme built / data aware for safety against hardware failures. If you plan to use the computer that will store the file only as a server, it is a good choices. BTRFS have similar features on Linux, but it is not as stable yet (even if I use it for my server and it work great).

For Linux, xfs+lvm2+raid1/5 is the best you can get. If one of the drive break, you replace it without losing your data. If it become full, you add more drives avec use the lvm and xfs ability to grow the file system without even taking the down while the operation is being performed.

But even with the best setup in the world, if the data are that valuable, but a 20$ good quality 100 DVD pack and fire clonezilla to make a full backup you can take away and store somewhere else. It make you safe against robber, fire or catastrophic electric grid malfunction.

michaelk 07-08-2010 07:35 PM

IMHO...
ext3 is the probably the most widely used and the default for most distributions. However, nothing is 100% including the hardware where the files are stored i.e. hard drive, CD, DVD, flash drive etc. I assume these are important files and having backups of your data is more important then filesystem used.

There are probably more tools to recover accidentally deleted data from ext/2/3/4 then other filesystems however having good backups is again the best plan. Again nothing is ever 100% perfect.

H_TeXMeX_H 07-09-2010 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archangel_617b (Post 4027760)
Your OS default as this will be both most tested and also require the least configuration during maintenance or recovery.

Not true, ext4 is quite dangerous.

I would use ext2. That would be safest to use for backups because it doesn't have journaling, and so it is usually easier to recover from.

archangel_617b 07-09-2010 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elv13 (Post 4027778)
But even with the best setup in the world, if the data are that valuable, but a 20$ good quality 100 DVD pack and fire clonezilla to make a full backup you can take away and store somewhere else. It make you safe against robber, fire or catastrophic electric grid malfunction.

Make sure you take care that your archive media has a reasonable shelf life. Generic writeable optical media will only last 10 years, here's an example discussion of choosing optical media:

http://adterrasperaspera.com/blog/20...archival-media

Avoid doing RAID in software at all costs. Any generic hardware RAID controller is good for RAID 1. If you want RAID 5, you'll probably have to spend some money (up to $1000 depending on the features).

As for H_TeXMeX_H comments on ext4 and ext2, I'm a little baffled. Journalling improves the reliability of the file system in any scenario where write operations are interrupted. I've only ever seen ext2 recommended in scenarios where the file system isn't changing. Maybe my assumption here is that the OP is talking about a file system on an active backup device, e.g. continuously writing to that device.

As for ext4, yes, it's relatively new but it's quickly moving past the "quite dangerous" stage of it's life. The OP might want to pick ext3 where ext4 would otherwise be the default, but I would still lean towards sticking with the OS default as that will be the best supported going forward.

H_TeXMeX_H 07-09-2010 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archangel_617b (Post 4028469)
As for H_TeXMeX_H comments on ext4 and ext2, I'm a little baffled. Journalling improves the reliability of the file system in any scenario where write operations are interrupted. I've only ever seen ext2 recommended in scenarios where the file system isn't changing. Maybe my assumption here is that the OP is talking about a file system on an active backup device, e.g. continuously writing to that device.

Oh, I see, so you would rsync the data or something. Well, in that case you're right, ext3 would be recommended, that way if the power goes down while syncing you could still recover.

I still am against ext4, because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4#De...tial_data_loss


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 PM.