Some things about typesetting "et al." seem obvious: make sure the period is followed by \ unless it's also the end of the sentence, use ~ before if you don't want it to end up alone in a new line.
What about the space in the middle, though? Reasonable options seem to include:
et al.
et~al.
et\hspace{.16667em}al.
et\,al.
I could not find any style guide or recommendation online.
Which variant is advisable? Are there citable references about this?
Rationale for half space: while et and al. are technically two words, they form an abbreviation together. Hence, I think the rules of compound abbreviations (e.g. e.\,g.\) apply.
Also, "al." alone at the start of a line looks weird. And lonely.

biblatex'senglish.lbxuseset\addabbrvspace al\adddotwhere\addabbrvspaceis a "normal" space penalized by a special abbreviation penalty. (biblatex.defhasThe counter 'abbrvpenalty' holds the penalty used in short or abbreviated bibliography strings. For example, a linebreak in expressions such as "et al." or "ed. by" is unfortunate, but should still be possible to prevent overfull boxes. We use TeX's \hyphenpenalty [...] as the default value. The idea is making TeX treat the whole expression as if it were a single, hyphenatable word as far as line-breaking is concerned.) – moewe Oct 12 '15 at 10:00et\,al.but after seeing the result it find it does look a bit cramped so I would go withet~al.. Withe.\,g.the thin space looks better because the.provides some visual spacing. – moewe Oct 12 '15 at 10:06z.\,B., but I'm not sure what they say aboutet al.. One could argue that the "et" isn't even abbreviated. – moewe Oct 12 '15 at 10:18e.\,g., then I'd expect you to be usinge.\,a., which few would be able to recognize. However, it is fine to discourage the break, asbiblatexdoes. – jon Oct 12 '15 at 16:53