Why does the syslog complain about duplicate files?


Recommended Posts

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  :o

 

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.

Link to comment

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.  :o

 

Link to comment

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.  :o

 

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.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.