BackupPC-users

Re: [BackupPC-users] Another jLib/fixLinks issue.

2010-12-09 19:02:36
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Another jLib/fixLinks issue.
From: "Jeffrey J. Kosowsky" <backuppc AT kosowsky DOT org>
To: "General list for user discussion, questions and support" <backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:00:03 -0500
Robin Lee Powell wrote at about 15:35:26 -0800 on Thursday, December 9, 2010:
 > > Well, it was designed (and tested) for the use case where this was
 > > a *rare* event so that it would be interesting to signal it.
 > > Perhaps even then  "WARN" or "NOTICE" would have been better than
 > > "ERROR." Indeed, that would be a good change (and you could always
 > > 'grep -v' it out of your results).
 > > 
 > > My thinking was that in the case of a messed-up pool knowing that
 > > some files had 32000 links would be worthy of notice.... of
 > > course, it seems like for you this is a non note-worthy
 > > occurrence.
 > > 
 > > Now per my comments in the code, this doesn't break anything, it
 > > only means that the links can't be combined and so pool usage
 > > can't be freed up for that file. 
 > 
 > I'm worried we're talking past each other, so be gentle if I'm
 > confused.  :)
 > 
 > If I have thousands of such files, each copy takes up the usual
 > amount of space.  They *should* be linked into the pool, so as to
 > take up 32k times less space.  The reason I ran it in the first
 > place was to link unlinked files like this into the pool; in this
 > case, unless I'm missing something, they stayed unlinked.
 > 
 > Since my goal was to free up space, it's important to me.
 > 
 > I agree it's something of an edge case, though, and if you don't
 > want to fix it I'd totally understand.
 > 

I think it's neither a right nor wrong thing. For me and for probably
many "average" users having 32000 links is likely to be more of a sign
of something gone wrong vs. a boring everyday occurrence.
While for you I understand it is common and annoyance since it seems
to signal errors where none truly exist and it distorts the error
count to boot.

As a compromise between these use cases, I did the following:
1. Changed "Error" to "Warn" - I think it's still a good warning to
   know that there are dups that are uncorrectable though for good
   reason.

2. I stopped it from increasing the error count.

Here is the modified version:

Attachment: BackupPC_fixLinks.pl
Description: Binary data

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/