That would mean the union of `lfs find --pool HDD /mnt/lustre` and `lfs find ! --pool HDD /mnt/lustre` would NOT be ALL files. I agree a semantic for finding files that are have no elements in a pool would be useful, I think using a not operator where it's not the inverse would be surprising.
Can I suggest something like `lfs find --outside-pool HDD`? On 4/26/19 11:35 AM, Vitaly Fertman wrote: > Hi > > during a discussion of a bug in lfs find, an improvement idea appeared, it is > well > described by Andreas below, and this thread is to discuss which options may > need this > functionality. > > >> On 26 Apr 2019, at 03:41, Andreas Dilger <adil...@whamcloud.com> wrote: >> >> lfs find ! --pool HDD ... >> >> should IMHO find files that do not have any instantiated components in pool >> HDD, rather than files that have any component not on HDD. >> >> That said, I could imagine that we may need to make some parameters more >> flexible, like adding "--pool =<poolname>" to allow specifying all >> components on the specified pool, and possibly + to specify "at least one >> component" (which would be the same as without "+" but may be more clear to >> some users)? >> >> A similar situation arose with "-mode" for regular find (any vs. all bits) >> that took a while to sort out, so we should learn from what they did and get >> it right. > — > Vitaly Fertman > _______________________________________________ > lustre-discuss mailing list > lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org -- Nathaniel Clark Senior Software Engineer Whamcloud / DDN _______________________________________________ lustre-discuss mailing list lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
