Re: [BackupPC-devel] V3 vs V4 migration (size and inodes)

[Craig B. <cba...@us...>]

Bill,

Sure, I agree that multiple hardlinks only consume one inode.  Each v3 pool
file (when first encountered in a v3 backup) should get moved to the new v4
pool.  So that shouldn't increase the number of inodes.  The per-directory
backup storage in v4 should be more efficient; I'd expect one less inode
per v4 directory.  v4 does add some reference count files per backup (128),
but that's rounding error.

Can you look in the V3 pool?  Eg, is $TOPDIR/cpool/0/0/0 empty?  It could
be it didn't get cleaned if you turned off the V3 pool before
BackupPC_nightly ran the next time.  If so, I'd expect the old v3 pool is
full of v3 attrib files, each with one link (ie, not used any longer).

Craig

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Bill Broadley <bi...@br...> wrote:

> On 03/29/2017 05:32 PM, Craig Barratt wrote:
> > Bill,
> >
> > That's interesting data.
> >
> > I'm not sure why the inode use goes up.  Has it stayed at the higher
> level after
> > BackupPC_nightly has run?
>
> Yes.
>
> >  Is the old V3 pool now empty?
>
> Yes, V3-V4 migration doesn't say anything, no errors, finishes quickly,
> and I
> disabled the V3 pool in the config.pl.  The daily report/chart doesn't
> show any V3.
>
> I didn't think hardlinks consumed inodes.  So a file hardlinked 5 times
> has 5
> directory entries, but only one inode.
>
> Is it possible backuppc consumes 2?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-devel mailing list
> Bac...@li...
> List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
> Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>