On Qua Mai 02 07 22:41, Jon Radel wrote: > Joel Franco wrote: > > > I could suggest, IMHO, to put a additional parameter like > > "partition-limit-size: 80%" that will expire the older images (but newer > > than the expire politics) to free the necessary space to make the new > > fresh image. > > Two initial reactions: > > 1) Nice idea; I could certainly use such a thing. > > 2) I don't think that you need to make any changes to dirvish at all. > Writing a separate expiration script which can parse that line out of a > config file and then deletes backups as necessary should be quite feasible. >
This is a way; a not very easy way :( The main reason to get it into the dirvish is the facility. > The most complicated part I can think of (this is all off the top of my > head, you understand; it bears further thought) is coming up with an > algorithm for picking which backups to delete that makes sense. Simply > getting rid of the oldest wouldn't keep me happy, as I like to keep a > monthly backup around for quite some time, and would be much happier to > see a 12-day old daily backup get sacrificed than a 3-month old monthly > backup. My first thought would be calculate, for each backup, the > percentage of the duration between creation and expiration which has > elapsed and delete backups for which that value is the highest. > Well.. To me is direct that the images could be deleted in a cronological base. In my experience, it have never occurred a situation where a old image could be more critical that a recent one. But this is my experience :) Joel Franco > --Jon Radel > _______________________________________________ > Dirvish mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
