libvirt users - Apr 2015 - mlocate/updatedb and btrfs subvolume mounts

I've just noticed that I'm having issues with finding files using
"locate" when those files are on btrfs subvolume mounts.

The issue is that updatedb cannot discern the difference between a
btrfs bind mount and btrfs subvolume [1]. This generally means that if
you're using btrfs subvolume mounts and updatedb at the same time, and
you want to index those subvolumes, you'll need to set
PRUNE_BIND_MOUNTS to 0 or "no". And then deal with all the cruft that
causes.
>From the bug above, you can see that the RedHat dev Michal Sekletar is
out of ideas. I'm not sure if he's reached out here or not... and if
not, he might welcome some help from the folks on this list.

Regrads,
Richard

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906591#c30

oh jeez - sorry for the noise. Wrong list.

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, G. Richard Bellamy
<rbellamy@pteradigm.com> wrote:
> I've just noticed that I'm having issues with finding files using
> "locate" when those files are on btrfs subvolume mounts.
>
> The issue is that updatedb cannot discern the difference between a
> btrfs bind mount and btrfs subvolume [1]. This generally means that if
> you're using btrfs subvolume mounts and updatedb at the same time, and
> you want to index those subvolumes, you'll need to set
> PRUNE_BIND_MOUNTS to 0 or "no". And then deal with all the cruft
that
> causes.
>
> From the bug above, you can see that the RedHat dev Michal Sekletar is
> out of ideas. I'm not sure if he's reached out here or not... and
if
> not, he might welcome some help from the folks on this list.
>
> Regrads,
> Richard
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906591#c30