Right. But if you remove the .dir-control file and already have an
existing structure, are the routines smart enough to reuse the space and
skip where the directories are "full"? Or does it just start from
scratch in which you would reuse the directories but it would be
additive to existing structure. So if you have 100 users in the "c"
directory it would add 100 more.
From: Ken Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] hashing directories
On Monday 14 February 2005 1:16 pm, Charles J. Boening wrote:
> If it sees an exiting one will it skip it?
If it sees an existing .dir_control file then it will use the
information contained therein. Meaning the directories will continue to
be in the sub directorys.
If you remove the .dir_control file it will automatically create a
.dir_control file with the initial values. meaning no subdirectories
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 7:36 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] hashing directories
> On Sunday 13 February 2005 9:38 pm, James Whitt wrote:
> > My question is on the removal of empty hashing directories or at
> > least
> > their reuse. While running through our test server which we are
> > setting up to replace our old system, I noticed that when domains
> > are removed, they aren't being replaced when new domains are being
> > created. To get to the point, we now have basically 0 - N
> > directories
> > with no domains in them, and they are completely empty, yet when we
> > create more domains, a new directory will be created when the last
> > one
> > is filled (so if P gets filled, then Q is created even though 0 - N
> > are sitting with no domains in it). Is there an easy way to have it
> > reuse directories that are not hitting the quota anymore instead of
> > potentially having a lot of empty directories?
> > James Whitt
> If you remove the ~vpopmail/domains/.dir-control file, then the
> directory hashing will start over at the begining.
> Ken Jones