Hello, took me some time to come back to this issue. We have migrated to a stronger server, but this only heals the problem for a limited time. The number of files in a single directory will eventually cause trouble to people using certain filesystems. The server won't help anymore here.
Thanks to Thomas who nicely listed up the options. A major question we should answer is: Should we entirely de-couple the directory hierachy of the NVT files for the context structures like the families? If yes, we are really free to choose whatever occurs best to us regarding the directories like the year of creation. But then, IMHO we should transfer the same structure to the feed service. The family and OID concepts should then be treated as unrelated to this structure. The downside is that finding a filename to a given OID or family is not straight-forward possible via the directory tree. I see a problem for the OpenVAS NVT Feed where community wished to have a sync that does not delete files in the user installation when deleted on the feed service. If we move the deb_* in the feed to a subdirectory then the users have two sets of the script visible in their installation. This does not happen for the Greenbone Security Feed where we always remove removed NVTs. So, any last opinions about this? If no objections or alternatives are expressed I think it is best to go with Thomas' proposal (option 3), but have this also be applied to the feed directory structure. Best Jan On Tuesday 28 February 2012 05:33:24 Thomas Reinke wrote: > Solution depends on how long you want the alternative to last. > > Option 1: > Move all LSCs to a subdir. Currently, somewhat > 8000 > scripts could be segregated that way. > Question: is that enough? How long will that solution last? > > Option 2: > Create a unique directory for each category of script. > More granular than option #1, probably will never suffer from > excess scripts in any one directory. BUT, if a script changes > it's category for whatever reason, do you change it's location > in SVN? > > Option 3: > Segregated by year of creation. > Never will have to worry about excess scripts in any year. > Easy to manage. Not tied to category or any other metric. > > I like option #3 the best... > > Thomas > > Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote: > > Hello, > > > > the size and pace of NVT updates caused some trouble to the SVN > > and several people might have observed problems with updating. > > At least the OpenVAS NVT Service got troubled (but is fixed now). > > > > It is really time to start having subdirectories for the scripts > > directory. Just separating one of the big groups such as debian would > > help a lot. The current problem is svn, not the actual feed service or > > scanner. Too many files in one dir with many changes causes trouble to > > SVN. > > > > I am not seeking for a whole new tree/OID structure for the NVTs > > as I don't think we have all criteria discussed for this. A small > > yet effective solution would be sufficient. > > > > Proposals welcome! > > > > Best > > > > Jan -- Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner | ++49-541-335084-0 | http://www.greenbone.net/ Greenbone Networks GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG Osnabrück, HR B 202460 Geschäftsführer: Lukas Grunwald, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner _______________________________________________ Openvas-plugins mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openvas-plugins
