similar to: hardlinks deliver not work

Hi Javier, thanks for your reply. I already checked SIS and, while interesting, is not what I want, because: 1) it can be difficult to restore a single message/attachment from a backup 2) only the attachments, and not the entire messages, are deduped. Message-based hardlinks really exists for a reason. The good news is that I found _why_ they are not working: it depends from how dovecot and

Hi all, I have some questions about hardlinks, alternate storage and compression. I already scanned the list for related information and I have an idea of how things works, but I would like to have a definite answer. System spec: - CentOS 6.6 x64 - dovecot-2.0.9-8.el6_6.4.x86_64 RPM package/version - sdbox mail store 1) About hardlinks: when sending the same message to two different

On 14/07/15 08:17, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Gionatan Danti wrote: > >> On the other hand, private (per-user) sieve file works without >> interfering with hardlinks. In a similar manner, disabling sieve also >> permits dovecot to create multiple hardlinks for a single message. >> >>

> centos 7.x is latest, so if you need help upgrade make a bug report to > centos, not waste your time here since you choiced a precompiled > problem, reporting here 7s helpfull if you use dovecot compiled with > the latest version here, this migth be a unknown bug you then have > found, but not if you use precompiled problems, then report to the > maintainers of such software

Subject should be enough: are hardlinks supported when rsyncing over ssh? I know that I cannot do anything with hardlinks if I'm using SSHFS over FUSE, I was wondering if rsync is plagued by the same problem. Matt

dear rsyncists, rsync is superb! but did i actually find a bug? i did: $ rsync -vRHSPa rsync://rsync.mirror.ac.uk/updates.redhat.com/7.3/en/os/SRPMS . into an empty local directory the result was 140 bogus hardlinks of the same file: -rw-rw-r-- 140 g g 6147582 2002/12/04 16:55:24 Canna-3.5b2-62.7.3.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 140 g g 6147582 2002/12/04 16:55:24

Hello list, Excuse me for my poor english. I have updated on a test server dovecot 2.0.13 to dovecot 2.1.1. All works fine, but with the new version it seems that dovecot don't do hardlinks when deliver a message to multiple users. I have checked my config and the only rule I can see aboout that is maildir_copy_with_hardlinks = yes in /etc/dovecot/conf.d/10-mail.conf My mail location

I'm copying a partition that has a bunch of hardlink based snapshots (-aPH). I think there's about 250,000 files in each backup and between 100 and 200 snapshots. Earlier today, I saw the files had completed and it was making all the hardlinks. I thought it would be "not long" but it's been making hardlinks for 12 hours (at least). There's only 36Gb in snapshot, the

On 30 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > > So, let me do a straigth question: is someone using dovecot/LMTP with hardlinking? To me, this seems a _very_ important feature, and I wonder if I am doing something wrong or if the feature (hardlink+sieve) simply does not exists. Hardlink+Sieve has never worked. The fix is a bit complicated. Here's my

On 14/07/15 12:26, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > > You asked about "newer dovecot versions", v2.2 does so. > Fair enough :) So, with v2.2+ the hardlink approach is irremediably gone, at least with LMTP (and without relying to SiS)? -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti at assyoma.it - info at assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Hello list On my server almost half of files are duplicated, and there are almost 100GB of data which is growing fast. I'm using weekly script to find duplicated files and replace them with hardlinks. Everything is fine as long as users aren't trying to edit and save some documents which have hardlinks. With samba 3.3 it seems that hardlinks aren't unlinked before file is saved.

Hi. I've no response from so@ in this topic, probably because leak of time, so I'll try here. Here is a patch that I'm planing to commit: http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/restricted_hardlinks.patch It adds two new sysctls: security.bsd.hardlink_check_uid security.bsd.hardlink_check_gid If sysctl security.bsd.hardlink_check_uid is set to 1, unprivileged users are not

Hi, I detected a silly behaviour of rsync when new hardlinks of already synced files are created: Scenario: There are a local directory and a equal remote directory created by former run of rsync. Create a hardlink from a already existing file (both inside the local directory). If this hardlink has a filename with comes before the original filename when both are sorted in alphabetic order,

On 30 Nov 2015, at 17:48, Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > > Hi Timo, > glad to know it is in your TODO list ;) It's been for many years. > Any rough ETA on that? Right now it doesn't seem likely to be developed anytime soon. > Thanks. > > On 30/11/2015 14:23, Timo Sirainen wrote: >> On 30 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Gionatan Danti <g.danti

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3692 Summary: regression: symlinks are created as hardlinks with -- link-dest Product: rsync Version: 2.6.7 Platform: x86 URL: http://rsync.samba.org OS/Version: FreeBSD Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: core

Hi, I got stuck within some weird prob concerning my 2-node linux cluster and the synchronisation tool at hand (rsync-2.5.1pre1). I have to copy a structure of 70 directories where the data of these directories are hardlinked to the data of the 1st directory. Within this "orig data" directory, I have about 30.000 files, so the amount of files to sync is approx. 2.100.000. The

Hi all, any ideas? Especially point n.1 (no hardlink when sending the same email to multiple addresses) confuse me a bit. Searching in old messages I even stumbled on some users stating that, using Dovecot LMTP server, they achieved what I want (one messagge, multiple hardlinks), but I am _already_ using LMTP with no avail... Regards. On 27/06/15 18:18, Gionatan Danti wrote: > Hi all,

Hi list, many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used. The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered messages, using pigeonhole broke the hardlink (ie: some message-specific data was appended to the actual mail file). Here you can find the original thread:

Hi, hardlinking (-H) works perfectly while using a syntax like -avhxSDH <SRC> <DEST> Now I have to mirror multiple SRC directories which contain hardlinks. e. g: src1/a is a hardlink to src2/b -RavhxSDH SRC1 SRC2 DEST does not preserve hardlink a and b in DEST. Is there any chance to do that? Thanks lopiuh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi all, I have some updates on the hard-link discussion. First, let me explain that I installed a test machine with CentOS 7.1 and dovecot/pigeonhole version 2.2.10-4 and the results where identical on what I had on CentOS 6.7 and dovecot 2.0.9-19 The bottom line is that hardlinking works only when no, or at most only one, RCPT have sieve filtering. For example: - if no RCPT has sieve