app-arch/hardlink++ is dead project and the upstream of it moved to Python and called it "pyhardlink" which is also dead and hasn't been touched since 2010 see these as proof, http://www.sodarock.com/hardlink/ http://code.google.com/p/hardlinkpy/source/detail?r=1be1ba7ea38917e6b52c189ef625b05b4e7e4d52 some discussion at bug 337250 too but we have app-arch/hardlink which is maintained by Debian and is active so lets lastrite app-arch/hardlink++
Can somebody throw together a package for pyhardlink? The debian hardlink didn't have all the features of hardlink++.
(In reply to comment #1) > Can somebody throw together a package for pyhardlink? The debian hardlink > didn't have all the features of hardlink++. Did you notice app-arch/hardlink-fedora yet? But absolutely, if neither hardlink nor hardlink-fedora does everything you need I'll wrap up yet another package. It's shame though, since pyhardlink is a dead project as well -- no releases even, last commit 2-3 years ago
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Can somebody throw together a package for pyhardlink? The debian hardlink > > didn't have all the features of hardlink++. > > Did you notice app-arch/hardlink-fedora yet? But absolutely, if neither > hardlink nor hardlink-fedora does everything you need I'll wrap up yet > another package. It's shame though, since pyhardlink is a dead project as > well -- no releases even, last commit 2-3 years ago Scratch this. As per IRC conversation, I'll wait for you to test =app-arch/hardlink-0.2.0 (the C rewrite) first. Forget about the 0.1.x series.
It works, but the results seem to be very different. Can we please explicitly note the rsync exclusion is needed as an argument now? pyHardlink run: # ./hardlink.py -n -f -c -t 2011* Directories : 32807 Regular files : 2504524 Comparisons : 148287 Hardlinked this run : 122246 Total hardlinks : 2441582 Bytes saved this run : 2371523311459 (2208.653 gibibytes) Total bytes saved : 10036032362012 (9346.783 gibibytes) Total run time : 32327.741466 seconds Peaked at ~200mb of memory. hardlink-0.2.0 run: peaked at ~600mb of ram # hardlink -n -f -c -t 2011* Mode: dry-run Files: 2504524 Linked: 100434 files Compared: 94757608 files Saved: 1861.81 GiB Duration: 13756.74 seconds Notice that both of these had the same arguments, including dry-run, so that the y should have given the same results.
(In reply to comment #4) > It works, but the results seem to be very different. > Can we please explicitly note the rsync exclusion is needed as an argument > now? You mean that "-t 2011*", right? > # hardlink -n -f -c -t 2011*
Created attachment 312375 [details, diff] rsync exclusion readme stuff @robbat2: I'm still not sure what exactly you want to say, but to avoid polluting the emerge output with something obscure, I'd use this
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > It works, but the results seem to be very different. > > Can we please explicitly note the rsync exclusion is needed as an argument > > now? > You mean that "-t 2011*", right? No. -x '^\..*\.\?{6,6}$' is the regex that hardlink.py uses for excluding rsync files.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > It works, but the results seem to be very different. > > > Can we please explicitly note the rsync exclusion is needed as an argument > > > now? > > You mean that "-t 2011*", right? > No. > > -x '^\..*\.\?{6,6}$' > is the regex that hardlink.py uses for excluding rsync files. OK, done: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-arch/hardlink/hardlink-0.2.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3 Is that OK? And thanks Robin for putting up with me not following you that good with this one :-)
(In reply to comment #8) > OK, done: > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-arch/hardlink/hardlink-0. > 2.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3 > Is that OK? Yup, that parts looks ok. > And thanks Robin for putting up with me not following you that good with > this one :-) I don't mind the 2.4x speedup at all, but I'm still concerned about the difference in results.
done
