On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 02:47:24PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
> I'm planning
> to run *some*sort*of*dupmerge*, individually on ./1 ./2 ./3
> each time they get updated. this is to address multiple users
> downloading the same source etc. ie files not necessarily in
> adjacent snapshots but spac
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:47:00PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:26:18 -0400
>From: "George Georgalis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>the program is http://www.ka9q.net/code/dupmerge/
>there are 200 lines of well commented C; however
>there may be a bug whic
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:26:18 -0400
From: "George Georgalis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the program is http://www.ka9q.net/code/dupmerge/
there are 200 lines of well commented C; however
there may be a bug which allocates too much memory
(one block per file); so my application r
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:33:31PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:11:27AM -0700, Chuck Wolber wrote:
>>On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Paul Slootman wrote:
>>
>>> > In any case, what's the general consensus behind using the
>>> > --hard-links option on large (100GB and above) image
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:11:27AM -0700, Chuck Wolber wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Paul Slootman wrote:
>
>> > In any case, what's the general consensus behind using the
>> > --hard-links option on large (100GB and above) images? Does it still
>> > use a ton of memory? Or has that situation been
On Tue 05 Jun 2007, Chuck Wolber wrote:
>
> In our case, we store images as hardlinks and would like an easy way to
> migrate images from one backup server to another. We currently do it with
> a script that does a combination of rsync'ing and cp -al. Our layout is
> similar to:
>
> image_dir
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > In any case, what's the general consensus behind using the
> > --hard-links option on large (100GB and above) images? Does it still
> > use a ton of memory? Or has that situation been alleviated?
>
> The size of the filesystem isn't relevant, the num
On Tue 05 Jun 2007, Chuck Wolber wrote:
>
> Have the hard-links optimizations that were described here been
> implemented?
It has.
> In any case, what's the general consensus behind using the --hard-links
> option on large (100GB and above) images? Does it still use a ton of
> memory? Or has
Have the hard-links optimizations that were described here been
implemented?
http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2004-January/008137.html
In any case, what's the general consensus behind using the --hard-links
option on large (100GB and above) images? Does it still use a ton of
memory? Or ha
