Re: Why or why not back up "/lost+found"
On Thu 10 Aug 2023 at 15:52:02 (-0700), Bob McGowan wrote:
> On 8/10/23 03:03 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Default User (12023-08-10):
> > > > > And, if /lost+found should be excluded, then shouldn't "lost+found"
> > > > > in any other directories be excluded from backups as well? Why/why
> > > > > not?
> > > Unfortunately, I regret to say that I did not find that the answer to
> > > the question(s) about lost+found in the original post were contained in
> > > the explanation(s) of its function - at least in what I have read so
> > > far.
> > The lost+found directory at the root of the filesystem is special, it is
> > created when the filesystem is created and set up to receive orphaned
> > files. A lost+found directory elsewhere… is just a directory with a
> > wacky name.
> >
> Almost but not quite completely true.
>
> If you have more than one filesystem on your host, they may also have
> lost+found directories which will show up in their mount points.
>
> For example, with your home on a separate disk, mounted on /home,
> there may be a /home/lost+found.
>
> The same thinking applies to them as to /lost+found.
But /home/lost+found is still called /lost+found on the filesystem
it belongs to; it's only now called /home/lost+found because you
mounted that filesystem on /home. That's why Nicolas wrote "at the
root of the filesystem"; that's any filesystem (that uses the concept).
The OP should also note that you musn't use mkdir to create such
directories: mklost+found should be used instead. Typically it
pre-allocates space so that fsck doesn't have to disturb the rest
of the filesystem when it runs.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: