On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Steve Wray wrote: > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Graeme Humphries wrote: > > > >>Guy Dallaire wrote: > >> > >>>Yes, thanks. I know about hard links. But how would it impact the size > >>>or performance of my backups ? > >>> > >> > >>Well, if a file is hard linked multiple times, it'll be backed up multiple > >>times. Therefor, a filesystem with tons of hard links will take a really > >>long > >>time to back up. :) > > > > Fortunately tar is sufficiently smart to back it up only once. > > > > Usually the problem with lots of hard links is not the data timeout value, > > but > > the estimate timeout value, as I found out the hard way[*]. > > We've been having similar problems with estimates timeing out. I just > ran the 'find' command given in an earlier email and found a grand total > of 607 hard links on the entire filesystem. > > What I'm wondering is, does 607 count as 'lots' WRT amanda estimate > timeouts?
Not really, given I have many files with more than 600 hard links. I seem to have 1582186 of them in my cluster of Linux kernel source trees. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds