Amanda-Users

Re: How could amflush NOT flush ? :o) [OFF TOPIC]

2003-07-23 10:21:43
Subject: Re: How could amflush NOT flush ? :o) [OFF TOPIC]
From: Nicolas Ecarnot <nicolas.ecarnot AT accim DOT com>
To: amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:36:31 +0200
Selon Paul Bijnens <paul.bijnens AT xplanation DOT com>:

> Nicolas Ecarnot wrote:
> 
> > I first thought about a script that would launch amdump without the
> > option autoflush, then copy the last created directory, then launch
> > amflush. But that copy is way too large for my not-so-small 120Go
> > holding disk.
> 
> Instead of a copy, make hard links to the original files.

I'm confuse to see that I never took the time to read the hard link related
part of the 'man ln'. So, though I often use symlinks, I've never used hard
links.
So I read the doc, and made some tests : This a just great and simple.
According to what I understand, any file in a unix filesystem is accessed
via its inode number, and not its name. That's why one can use as many names
we want for the same inode.

The doc (under FreeBSD 5.1) also says that the hard links can't be used for
directories, but only for files. I tested it, and indeed, I'm stuck.

A little search on google explained me that the filesystem limits that
because every file needs to now who is its father (directory), and has to
have only one father. This seems related to some inability to detect the
recursivity in some cases (... foggy, ain't it ? :o)

Well, so I'm stuck here with my problem... too bad...

Too bad because your idea whas simple, so great !

-- 
Nicolas Ecarnot