Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-11-08 Thread James Youngman
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM, James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Since find is so disk-intensive, isn't this is only of benefit if /usr, /var >> and /home are on different devices? > > Yes. Disk-head-movement op

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-11-08 Thread James Youngman
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/10/08 07:28, James Youngman wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> how do you actually optimize disk head movement? >> >> Essentially by modifying fts() to pay attent

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-10 Thread Ron Johnson
On 10/10/08 07:28, James Youngman wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/09/08 23:05, James Youngman wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I *think* that James Youngman was being sarcastic. If I'm wrong, the

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-10 Thread James Youngman
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/09/08 23:05, James Youngman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I *think* that James Youngman was being sarcastic. If I'm wrong, then so >>> much the better. >> >

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-10 Thread Ron Johnson
On 10/09/08 23:05, James Youngman wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I *think* that James Youngman was being sarcastic. If I'm wrong, then so much the better. I was not being sarcastic. Excellent, I've reached my quota for being wrong this year! A

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-09 Thread James Youngman
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I *think* that James Youngman was being sarcastic. If I'm wrong, then so > much the better. I was not being sarcastic. James. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-07 Thread Ron Johnson
I *think* that James Youngman was being sarcastic. If I'm wrong, then so much the better. On 10/07/08 21:22, Mag Gam wrote: Great. Thanks. Basically I have 500+ directories; each directory which has over 9000 files. I was wondering if there is a trick I can use. TIA On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-07 Thread Mag Gam
Great. Thanks. Basically I have 500+ directories; each directory which has over 9000 files. I was wondering if there is a trick I can use. TIA On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:29 AM, James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Si

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-02 Thread James Youngman
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since find is so disk-intensive, isn't this is only of benefit if /usr, /var > and /home are on different devices? Yes. Disk-head-movement optimisation will not be implemented in findutils for another six weeks or so. Jam

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-02 Thread Michael Mohn
Am 02.10.2008 um 12:52 schrieb Mag Gam: On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/02/08 04:28, James Youngman wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was wondering if its possible to run updatedb on a very large fil

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-02 Thread Mag Gam
WEll, I am more interesting is searching a large Networked filesystem. On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/02/08 04:28, James Youngman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I was wondering if its possib

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-02 Thread Ron Johnson
On 10/02/08 04:28, James Youngman wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was wondering if its possible to run updatedb on a very large filesystem (6 TB). Has anyone done this before? I plan on running this on a weekly basis, but I was wondering if updatedb w

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-02 Thread James Youngman
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was wondering if its possible to run updatedb on a very large > filesystem (6 TB). Has anyone done this before? I plan on running this > on a weekly basis, but I was wondering if updatedb was faster than a > simple 'find'. Are

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-01 Thread Johann Spies
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 07:53:05AM -0400, Mag Gam wrote: > Thanks Sven. Is it possible to get file user owner and file size with > the mlocate/updatedb ? > > I would like to get granular reports like that... What about something like "ls -la `locate .bashrc`" where you replace .bashrc with whatev

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-01 Thread Mag Gam
Thanks Sven. Is it possible to get file user owner and file size with the mlocate/updatedb ? I would like to get granular reports like that... On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-10-01 13:15 +0200, Mag Gam wrote: > >> I was wondering if its possible

Re: updatedb for very large filesystems

2008-10-01 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2008-10-01 13:15 +0200, Mag Gam wrote: > I was wondering if its possible to run updatedb on a very large > filesystem (6 TB). Has anyone done this before? I don't have such luxurious filesystems, but it should certainly be possible. It's just a matter of time (the number of files is what real