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

[Sascha Wildner <saw@xxxxxxxxx>]

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