Am 26.05.2014 01:46, schrieb Marian Marinov:
> Have anyone of you looked at this: https://github.com/1and1/linux-filemon/
>
> I haven't stress tested it, but in the past I ported it to more recent
> kernels:
> https://github.com/hackman/filemon-patches
>
> It is not polished, but it works.
>
On 05/24/2014 02:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 24.05.2014 09:52, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
>> On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
> Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
> Last time I've tried it
On 05/24/2014 02:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 24.05.2014 09:52, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
Last time I've tried it did failed as
Am 26.05.2014 01:46, schrieb Marian Marinov:
Have anyone of you looked at this: https://github.com/1and1/linux-filemon/
I haven't stress tested it, but in the past I ported it to more recent
kernels:
https://github.com/hackman/filemon-patches
It is not polished, but it works.
I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/24/2014 03:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 24.05.2014 09:52, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
>> On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
> Does recursive monitoring even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/24/2014 03:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 24.05.2014 09:52, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with
Am 24.05.2014 09:52, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
> On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
>>> Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
>>> Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
>>> mkdir() raced against the thread which installes the new
On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
mkdir() raced against the thread which installes the new watches.
As I
Am 24.05.2014 09:52, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
mkdir() raced
Seems like also 'mv' events are also not supported by fanotify, like
creation/deletion.
Therefore not an option (for lsyncd) probably. Maybe loggedfs is (if
time permits...).
Thanks for the discussion.
Jos
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.04.2014 15:31,
Seems like also 'mv' events are also not supported by fanotify, like
creation/deletion.
Therefore not an option (for lsyncd) probably. Maybe loggedfs is (if
time permits...).
Thanks for the discussion.
Jos
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Am 21.04.2014
Am 21.04.2014 15:31, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
> On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
>>> Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
>>> Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
>>> mkdir() raced against the thread which installes the new
Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
>> Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
>> Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
>> mkdir() raced against the thread which installes the new watches.
>
> As I understand it, you have to program to
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Richard Weinberger
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Michael Kerrisk
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Lennart Sorensen
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Jos Huisken wrote:
I was trying to maintain a local and
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Richard Weinberger
richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00:37PM
Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
mkdir() raced against the thread which installes the new watches.
As I understand it, you have to program to deal with
On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
mkdir() raced against the thread which installes the new watches.
As I
Am 21.04.2014 15:31, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
On 04/21/2014 10:42 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 21.04.2014 09:24, schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
Does recursive monitoring even work with inotify?
Last time I've tried it did failed as soon I did a mkdir -p a/b/c/d because
mkdir()
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Lennart Sorensen
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Jos Huisken wrote:
>>> I was trying to maintain a local and remote directory in sync with
>>> lsync, using inotify.
>>> I happen to
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 06:15:40AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> (One of us is misunderstanding fanotify; it might be me.)
No I think you are right, and that the misunderstanding is on my part.
I had not realized that fanotify did not provide create/delete events,
only access events.
> Did you
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 06:15:40AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
(One of us is misunderstanding fanotify; it might be me.)
No I think you are right, and that the misunderstanding is on my part.
I had not realized that fanotify did not provide create/delete events,
only access events.
Did you
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Jos Huisken wrote:
I was trying to maintain a local and remote directory in sync with
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Jos Huisken wrote:
>> I was trying to maintain a local and remote directory in sync with
>> lsync, using inotify.
>> I happen to have >4M files and >400k directories... running over
>>
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Jos Huisken wrote:
> I was trying to maintain a local and remote directory in sync with
> lsync, using inotify.
> I happen to have >4M files and >400k directories... running over
> /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
Would fanotify perhaps be a better
I was trying to maintain a local and remote directory in sync with
lsync, using inotify.
I happen to have >4M files and >400k directories... running over
/proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
What if inotify could just provide all events (limited for instance by
euid), which can be filtered by
I was trying to maintain a local and remote directory in sync with
lsync, using inotify.
I happen to have 4M files and 400k directories... running over
/proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
What if inotify could just provide all events (limited for instance by
euid), which can be filtered by the
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Jos Huisken wrote:
I was trying to maintain a local and remote directory in sync with
lsync, using inotify.
I happen to have 4M files and 400k directories... running over
/proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
Would fanotify perhaps be a better
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Jos Huisken wrote:
I was trying to maintain a local and remote directory in sync with
lsync, using inotify.
I happen to have 4M files and 400k directories... running
30 matches
Mail list logo
