Ignore that last question, it looks like it follows links and backs up
their contents too so a link I had in my home folder to some videos on
another drive was being followed and backup up too!
An interesting feature!
Ritchie wrote:
> Thanks Adam, that all makes more sense now :)
>
> What I am a bit puzzled by is how a 14GB home folder manages to take up
> 50GB when I use backintime to take a snapshot. This is the first
> snapshot so I wouldn't expect it to be any bigger than the data it is
> backing up at this point in time!
>
> Any ideas? The website http://www.le-web.org/back-in-time/ isn't much
> help really and I can't see any obvious forums anywhere.
>
> Ritchie
>
> Dr A. J. Trickett wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 25 Jan 2009, Vic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The data I am backing up is in ext3 format, would I be best of using
>>>> ext2 or ext3 for the external drive? Or any other file system?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Choose ext3 over ext2 for this sort of thing - ext2 is very fragile in
>>> respect of power loss, random unplugging, etc. ext3 is very much more
>>> reilient.
>>>
>>>
>> Vic is correct ext3 is better than ext2. Basically ext2 and ext3 are the same
>> base filesystem, but the version 3 has a number of extra features the most
>> important being it has a journal which means that in the event of major
>> problems like power failures and such it will recover much faster and
>> probably with less data loss.
>>
>> Ext3 is not actually more reliable than ext2 in normal use, the data can
>> usually still be recovered on an ext2 filesystem that has had a problem, it's
>> just that ext3 recovery may a few seconds and not involve much manual work,
>> whereas on a large multi-giga byte disk it make take many minutes or even
>> hours with ext2 and require some hand intervation.
>>
>> Pretty much every Linux distro available today uses ext3 as default and there
>> is normally no reason to use the older ext2 version - though there are still
>> valid reasons for doing so.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
