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?

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.

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

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).

Would it be possible to remove the "Solved" thumb from this thread?

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) 

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.