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

[Sascha Wildner <saw@xxxxxxxxx>]

Am 22.04.2010 18:06, schrieb Sascha Wildner:
> Am 16.04.2010 00:26, schrieb Matthew Dillon:
> >       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,
>
> I'm against hammer cleanup running on unmounted PFSs by default. What
> else than not mounting it could be a clearer statement like "don't mess
> with this in any way, please"?
>
> All other file system related things in the system don't mess with
> unmounted file systems.
>
> I suggest making this a periodic(8) option which the user can turn on if
> it is wanted.

OK :)

Lemme point out more clearly what I mean:

If the discussion is about manually issuing the cleanup command on an 
unmounted PFS, that is fine with me. I agree it should work, just as 
fsck works on unmounted file systems.

It's only the nightly cleanup via periodic(8) which I'm concerned about. 
That should not touch my unmounted PFSs because I might have unmounted 
them exactly for that reason: to not have the system mess with them 
unless I say so.

Rereading your mail, it seems to me that it was rather the former thing 
which was being discussed.

So the only thing I ask for actually is that tuxillo shall take care 
that the nightly automatic cleanup only touches mounted PFSs, as it is 
the case now.

I hope we all agree,
Sascha

--
http://yoyodyne.ath.cx