Hello, all. I''m thinking of rolling out a BackupPC server, and -- based on the strength of the recent Phoronix benchmarks (http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11156&Itemid=23) -- had been strongly considering btrfs. But I do seem to recall that there was some sort of hardlinks-per-directory limitation, and BackupPC *loves* hardlinks. Would someone care to either remind me what the issue was, or reassure me that it''s been rectified? Thanks! -Ken -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:35:59AM -0400, Ken D''Ambrosio wrote:> Hello, all. I''m thinking of rolling out a BackupPC server, and -- based > on the strength of the recent Phoronix benchmarks > (http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11156&Itemid=23) > -- had been strongly considering btrfs. But I do seem to recall that > there was some sort of hardlinks-per-directory limitation, and BackupPC > *loves* hardlinks. Would someone care to either remind me what the issue > was, or reassure me that it''s been rectified? >It''s because we pack inode ref''s into the same item, so once the item fills up we can''t add anymore refs. It''s still a problem, not sure if/when its getting fixed. Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday 28 July 2010, Ken D''Ambrosio said:> Hello, all. I''m thinking of rolling out a BackupPC server, and -- > based on the strength of the recent Phoronix benchmarks > (http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11156&Itemid=23) > -- had been strongly considering btrfs. But I do seem to recall > that there was some sort of hardlinks-per-directory limitation, and > BackupPC *loves* hardlinks. Would someone care to either remind me > what the issue was, or reassure me that it''s been rectified?btrfs has a limit on the number of hardlinks that can exist in the same directory. I don''t believe that BackupPC will create any more hardlinks in a given directory than are already in the filesystem you are backing up. It uses hardlinks between directories for files that haven''t changed. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html