Hello- We are using e2scan to do a full metadata scan, which we then use to generate lists of files eligible for purging. We recently found a bunch of files that should have been purged, but were not. Looking closer, these files had large link counts; our users have many hard links to the same inode. e2scan is only reporting the first instance of the hard link, so our purge process only removes a single hard link to a given inode per run (actually, reducing the link count changes the ctime, so it''s multiple days before another hard link is eligible to be removed). Looking at the source for e2scan, the report_file_name() function calls ext2fs_fast_unmark_inode_bitmap2() to mark that this inode has been processed. Then when filelist_dblist_iterate_cb() gets called for the "other" paths that correspond to that inode, it checks is_file_interesting() which calls ext2fs_fast_test_inode_bitmap2(). The inode is no longer set in the bitmap, so the path isn''t reported. I''m not very familiar with this code, so I would appreciate some advice from the experts. Is it "safe" to remove the ext2fs_fast_unmark_inode_bitmap2() call from report_file_name() because we want the same inode reported multiple times if it has multiple links? Are there situations where this could be the wrong thing to do, or is there a better way to handle this? Thanks in advance, ~Matt --- Matt Ezell HPC Systems Administrator Oak Ridge National Laboratory