PeterB Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 it should, in my opinion, always return the most current of all the various time-stamps of the parallel directories involved. It does mean they must be kept in memory for comparison (otherwise, you would need to spin up the drives to learn them). I would agree with that - but if there are lots of user shares on a 20+ drive server, that could be a lot to manage. I wonder whether it is possible to just keep a single copy in memory and update that whenever the directory of any physical drive is updated? Quote Link to comment
crazytony Posted June 14, 2012 Author Share Posted June 14, 2012 I haven't looked at the underlying stamps but the way Tom has fixed it works for RedHat and for Ubuntu. I have a feeling that Tom is using the same code area that detects duplicates eg: /mnt/disk1/junk/foo /mnt/disk2/junk/foo both map to /mnt/user/junk/foo but when it loads it gives a 'duplicate entry' error. Quote Link to comment
Influencer Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 I don't use NFS so I'm probably talking out of my butt right now, but do any in you use cache_dirs as well? Seems to me if its scanned and kept in memory, it wouldn't update timestamps properly. But I'm not at a pc to check, and not sure how it applies to NFS either. Just something I was thinking, let the flames begin Sent from my HTC Vivid Quote Link to comment
PeterB Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 I haven't looked at the underlying stamps but the way Tom has fixed it works for RedHat and for Ubuntu. Yes, the common problem when simply copying files to the server, from Ubuntu, does seem to be fixed. However, digikam, running on Ubuntu, was very unhappy until I disabled the cache drive for the share holding all my photos (and the digiKam-generated database). Quote Link to comment
Videodude Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Would it be possible to remove the "Solved" thumb from this thread? Quote Link to comment
crazytony Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 I changed the icon. This will be one for Tom to re-investigate. I don't have a cache drive so I can't confirm the behavior. I thought that the cache drive was completely separate (eg: /mnt/user/cache) that copied from the drive to the array at regular intervals. I didn't realize that the data on the cache drive shows under the normal mounts (even in an unmoved state) Quote Link to comment
PeterB Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I didn't realize that the data on the cache drive shows under the normal mounts (even in an unmoved state) Yes, use of a cache drive has to be transparent as far as the client is concerned. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.