Re: Does the Slave pfs take up more space that the Master?

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:What i remember happened to me was that master pfs are pruned/reblocked by
:the periodic but the slave pfs are not, so time to time i used to get a lot
:of used space in my backups, just go and prune/reblock by hand and check if
:thats what happening to you, check the config before, so you sure not
:deleting stuff you dont want to.
:Damian
:
:On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:03, Siju George <sgeorge.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:> Hi,
:>
:> I have two hammer file systems.
:>
:> Backup1                   454G   281G   173G    62%    /Backup1
:> Backup2                   454G   316G   138G    70%    /Backup2

    Yes, I was trying to think of scenarios and I think you are close,
    that is likely the reason.  The hammer cleanup code is only scanning
    mounted PFSs.  I verified this by umounting my /var/crash (which is
    a PFS) and running hammer cleanup.  It didn't check /var/crash's
    PFS.

    So its not master/slave, it is simply whether the PFS is mounted or
    not that is the problem.

    This is definitely a bug.  hammer cleanup needs to go through all
    the PFSs.  It would be a nice mini-programming-project for someone
    who wants to fix it in the hammer utility.

						-Matt