August 19, 201114 yr NOOB alert The subject says it all. Is there a serious problem having the same file in two or more places (other than the wasted space)?
August 19, 201114 yr yes/no/depends If the "duplicate" is a partial file (lets say movie XYZ.mkv) due to a copy problem or whatever. You go to play movie XYZ.mkv, it could grab the partial file instead of the good copy. If both files are exact copies, then not that big an issue.
August 19, 201114 yr Author yes/no/depends... ...If both files are exact copies, then not that big an issue. except for the enormous amount of spam in my syslog Is there a way to turn this off?
August 19, 201114 yr yes/no/depends... ...If both files are exact copies, then not that big an issue. except for the enormous amount of spam in my syslog Is there a way to turn this off? Remove the duplicates.
August 19, 201114 yr yes/no/depends... ...If both files are exact copies, then not that big an issue. except for the enormous amount of spam in my syslog Is there a way to turn this off? Remove the duplicates. Or change the directory name so it's no longer a duplicate location. The message is a little misleading, as it doesn't really detect duplicate files, only a naming collision between files on different drives that are being mapped to the same file in a user share.
August 20, 201114 yr Author Or change the directory name so it's no longer a duplicate location. The message is a little misleading, as it doesn't really detect duplicate files, only a naming collision between files on different drives that are being mapped to the same file in a user share. Bingo! That's the "issue", but it would seem there would be a better way to disable this reporting (and hence "spamming") of my syslog.
August 20, 201114 yr Or change the directory name so it's no longer a duplicate location. The message is a little misleading, as it doesn't really detect duplicate files, only a naming collision between files on different drives that are being mapped to the same file in a user share. Bingo! That's the "issue", but it would seem there would be a better way to disable this reporting (and hence "spamming") of my syslog. Well, the "issue" really can be serious if you value your data, so I don't think the solution is to ignore it. If you access the file from a user share instead of the drive share, you don't know which file you are getting. If you don't use user shares, just turn them off, problem solved. If you do use them, I can't think of a scenario where it's good to not know which file (and drive) you are actually looking at. If you want to keep duplicates of your files on different drives for backup purposes (which I do, BTW) it's really a good practice to keep the "active" set, and a "backup" set, and then use file synchronization after major updates on the active set to commit the changes to your backup set. If you accidentally screw up one of your active files, you really don't want the backup to immediately be corrupted as well, it's nice to have that extra step in place so you can undo your screwup. Maybe I'm just missing the point, so I'd be interested in your rational in wanting to keep the duplicates in place and just not report them to the syslog.
August 20, 201114 yr Author thanks for the clarity... now I "get it"! I'll just move the "other" versions to a non-user share! Thanks...
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.