On Oct 27, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 00:17 +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote: >> ...and if the checksums are any good, then all you need to do to >> substitute a database is to realise that a good data checksum is >> invariant under renames. > > Don't quite see what you mean... > > Sure the checksums stay the same, but consider you have many millions of > files, and you moved them around and thus the paths in the DB are > incorrect... verifying the files will become very much a pain in the > a**, especially when multiple files don't verify anymore. > > Or what if you have many small similar files, where errors could lead to > a checksum that was a correct one for another file,... when the paths > are no longer valid you cannot know if this was a correct file or not. If you have lots of small files, and you really do need to associate them uniquely with the checksum, then try something like: ln <filename> /path/to/database/<SHA512 identifier>.<inode number> Hard links and inode numbers are also generally invariant under 'mv'. Trond-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
