On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 21:07:15 -0400, Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:33 AM +0200 6/3/08, Kris Kennaway wrote: >>Ivan Voras wrote: >>>Suleiman Souhlal wrote: >>> >>>> I have an old patch that makes kqueue monitor every file write on >>>> the system and return the inode number in the knote's data field: >>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/testing/kqueue-anyvnode-20050503.diff >>>> . >>>> >>>>I'd think it shouldn't be too hard to make it per-mountpoint.. >> >> FWIW, I would love to use this. I have situations where I have huge >> numbers of files and need to cheaply detect changes so I can >> resynchronize them to remote machines. > > I remember a discussion of changes to MacOS10 in Leopard which made it > easier to implement features such as Spotlight and TimeMachine. The > description starts here, I think: > > http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/7 > > the section on file-system events. > > The idea I thought was interesting was to save the metadata on a > directory basis, instead of saving it on the file. So, if file > /some/dir/fname was changed, then they'd record that *some* file under > /some/dir has changed. > > So when your userland process comes along later on, it still has to > scan all files in that directory to see which file(s) actually > changed. But that's a lot less work than scanning all files in the > filesystem, and it also means there is much less data that has to be > kept track of. > > I have no idea how easy it would be to implement something similar on > FreeBSD, but the strategy seemed like a pretty neat idea.
It sounds like a useful compromise between the number of tracked entries and scanning the entire fs :) _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
