3 ms·
But browsing my .snapshots directory was infinitely easier! I second this however I don't use the filesystem to get this functionality. I most often use XFS a
by LinuxBender 5y ago
But browsing my .snapshots directory was infinitely easier!
I second this however I don't use the filesystem to get this functionality. I most often use XFS and have a cronjob that calls an old perl script called "rsnapshot" [1] that makes use of hardlinks to deal with duplicate content and save space. One can create both local and remote snapshots. Similar to your situation I have used this to fix corrupted git repos which I could have done within git itself but rsnapshot was many times easier and I am lazy.
[1] - https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/rsnapshot https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/rsnapshot
- amelius 5y agoLet me guess: you use XFS because of the large number of hardlinks it allows out of the box (as opposed to the small number allowed by ext4)?
- LinuxBender 5y agoFor me personally it was a matter of benchmarks. In the past I have seen higher performance numbers especially when dealing with directories that contain a very large number of files creating / deleting vs ext4. I've not tested since the 5.11 kernel time-frame however. But to your point it would be nice to see XFS have an option to grow inode limits dynamically like brtfs instead of having to manually adjust it. I've honestly never even tried out brtfs but it looks like I should.