4694dede0e
rationale is that it makes the backup much safer than 'none', but does not incur a big of a performance hit as 'file'. here some benchmark: data to be backed up: ~14GiB semi-random test images between 12kiB and 4GiB that results in ~11GiB chunks (more than ram available on the target) PBS setup: virtualized (on an idle machine), PBS itself was also idle 8 cores (kvm64 on Intel 12700k) and 8 GiB memory all virtual disks are on LVM with discard and iothread on the HDD is a 4TB Seagate ST4000DM000 drive, and the NVME is a 2TB Crucial CT2000P5PSSD8 i tested each disk with ext4/xfs/zfs (default created with the gui) with 5 runs each, inbetween the caches are flushed and the filesystem synced i removed the biggest and smallest result and from the remaining 3 results built the average (percentage is relative to the 'none' result) result: test none filesystem file hdd - ext4 125.67s 140.39s (+11.71%) 358.10s (+184.95%) hdd - xfs 92.18s 102.64s (+11.35%) 351.58s (+281.41%) hdd - zfs 94.82s 104.00s (+9.68%) 309.13s (+226.02%) nvme - ext4 60.44s 60.26s (-0.30%) 60.47s (+0.05%) nvme - xfs 60.11s 60.47s (+0.60%) 60.49s (+0.63%) nvme - zfs 60.83s 60.85s (+0.03%) 60.80s (-0.05%) So all in all, it does not seem to make a difference for nvme drives, for hdds 'filesystem' increases backup time by ~10%, while for 'file' it largely depends on the filesystem, but always in the range of factor ~3 - ~4 Note that this does not take into account parallel actions, such as gc, verify or other backups. Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>