Does the Slave pfs take up more space that the Master?

Sascha Wildner saw at online.de
Thu Apr 22 09:06:20 PDT 2010


Am 16.04.2010 00:26, schrieb Matthew Dillon:
     Yes, I was trying to think of scenarios and I think you are close,
     that is likely the reason.  The hammer cleanup code is only scanning
     mounted PFSs.  I verified this by umounting my /var/crash (which is
     a PFS) and running hammer cleanup.  It didn't check /var/crash's
     PFS.
     So its not master/slave, it is simply whether the PFS is mounted or
     not that is the problem.
     This is definitely a bug.  hammer cleanup needs to go through all
     the PFSs.  It would be a nice mini-programming-project for someone
     who wants to fix it in the hammer utility.
Matt,

I'm against hammer cleanup running on unmounted PFSs by default. What 
else than not mounting it could be a clearer statement like "don't mess 
with this in any way, please"?

All other file system related things in the system don't mess with 
unmounted file systems.

I suggest making this a periodic(8) option which the user can turn on if 
it is wanted.

Sascha

--
http://yoyodyne.ath.cx




More information about the Users mailing list