Dear Lee, sorry for the late reply :-( there was no office for two days.
On 5/6/05, Lee Braiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 06 May 2005 12:15, Siju George wrote: > > actually I don't run a GUI on this machine because it is a server that > > hosts some PHP website development. > > Ahh. What are you actually trying to prevent, then? Accidentally deleting > your web projects? > not at all haha!!! just wanted to have an option in case something happens > For software projects, I'd recommend getting used to a version control system > like Subversion. Although not intended for it, version control gives you a > backup of your most recent working copy, along with a "timeline" of backups > covering the entire evolution of your project. Apart from that, it'll make > lots of other software development issues easier :) > > If you go a little further, and backup the version control's repository > directory, you gain not only a two-level backup system, but a backup of > everything you've ever done on a project :) > Yes I'll soon implement subversion on the server :-) > > Thanks a lot Lee for introducing Faubackup. I am going to try it. I > > heard of another software called Bacula. How do you compare both?? > > which is better?? > > I haven't tried bacula personally. I suspect it's more oriented towards > larger installations of workstations and a central backup server, but I may > be wrong. There are a number of backup options, which will mainly depend on > the scale of your backup needs, how seriously you take the backups, and your > willingness to be involved in the backup processes themselves. > > If you have multiple Debian (or Unix) machines on a secure LAN, the quickest > way of achieving a "real" backup solution is probably to use faubackup to > automatically backup everything to another box. > > > Presently I am using Ext3 is XFS better than Ext3?? > > I'm no expert, but from what I've read of others' opinions, I would say so, > yes. Ext3 is essentially a hack of Ext2 to gain journalling, whereas XFS has > a long and successful history in a high-end unix operating system, with > journalling from the beginning, afaik. To me, it's just a more professional > filesystem. > > Ext3 gets a lot of good press for exactly that: being a small change to Ext2. > Basically, it's a simple way to get journalling if you've already setup ext2, > rather than a good long-term solution, imho. There are a few arguments for > the reliability of ext3 (since it can use tested ext2 tools, etc.), but I > think it's safe to say that XFS is more mature than ext3. Ext3 is pretty > slow as well, I think. > > Again though, it's a matter of personal choice. Reiser does have some > interesting qualities too: notably speed on small files and large > directories. > > There are a few comparisons and benchmarks etc. available online, if you want > to research your choice further. > > On the other hand, if you have Ext3 now, and it works, and your projects are > on that filesystem... well, if it ain't broke... ;) > > > Will I be able to get the option to install XFS while installing from > > the Woody 3.0r5 CD? > > Or should I do something else to get XFS??? > > Sarge is almost at the point of being the new Woody, and therefore probably a > better choice than Woody. I'm not sure if it supports XFS out of the box, > but if not, you should be able to find Sarge XFS installation images, which > will set you up with XFS during install, as you're hoping. > all right Lee, thanks a lot god luck :-) kind regards Siju
