Re: [9fans] replica question

Re: [9fans] replica question

[erik quanstrom]

> However, I don't understand what one should do if this log was removed
> or somehow shortened (so that it does not mention the files' addition
> anymore).  Some such shortening is, I believe, reasonable, since after
> say 10 years nobody is probably interested in all the files' changes.
> But, if I understand, it is exclusively the log itself (i.e., not the
> server database file A.db) that is used for synchronization by
> replica...

read about compactdb, which is in replica(8).

- erik

Re: [9fans] replica question

[Rudolf Sykora]

> read about compactdb, which is in replica(8).

Compactdb works on the .db (simplifies it) but does nothing to the .log.
Applylog only reads the .log.
I don't see any way how compactdb would help here.

Thanks
Ruda

Re: [9fans] replica question

[erik quanstrom]

On Fri Nov 18 11:00:49 EST 2011, rudolf.sykora@gmail.com wrote:
> > read about compactdb, which is in replica(8).
>
> Compactdb works on the .db (simplifies it) but does nothing to the .log.
> Applylog only reads the .log.
> I don't see any way how compactdb would help here.

the way i've always done this is to copy the db and then
generate the log i wanted that represented the differences
i was interested in.  i did to the extent of replicating the
/n/dump from a 32-bit file server onto a 64-bit file server.

(geoff did a great job on that.  not a single problem with
the 64-bit file server stuff in 7 years.)

- erik

[9fans] replica question

[Rudolf Sykora]

Hello,

Yesterday I read replica(8), played with it a bit, and I have the
following question:

Say I have a directory A which I—from time to time—want to replicate
to directory B. With replica/updatedb I maintain two files, A.db and
A.log, describing the situation in the A directory.

If A.log has existed since the time replica/updatedb was run for the
first time, I may use this log as an input to replica/applylog and
create a replica of A in B.

However, I don't understand what one should do if this log was removed
or somehow shortened (so that it does not mention the files' addition
anymore).  Some such shortening is, I believe, reasonable, since after
say 10 years nobody is probably interested in all the files' changes.
But, if I understand, it is exclusively the log itself (i.e., not the
server database file A.db) that is used for synchronization by
replica...

Is there any more thorough explanation somewhere describing how replica works?

Thank you for hints/explanation!

Ruda

Re: [9fans] replica question

[Antonin Vecera]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Martin Neubauer <m.ne@gmx.net> wrote:
> The reason there is no conflict is that the entries for rc/bin/termrc in the
> replica databases on sources and on your computer are identical. Only after
> termrc would change on sources a conflict would arise becase the local copy
> would not match the database entry of the last pull.

I begin to understand...
Thanks.

Antonin

Re: [9fans] replica question

[Martin Neubauer]

The reason there is no conflict is that the entries for rc/bin/termrc in the
replica databases on sources and on your computer are identical. Only after
termrc would change on sources a conflict would arise becase the local copy
would not match the database entry of the last pull.

* Antonin Vecera (antonin.vecera@gmail.com) wrote:
> There is no conflict. I copied it as you wrote. After that I had local
> termrc with different time compared to termrc in sources. I did pull -
> and no changes, no conflicts. I don't understand. I expected conflict
> because of different modification time.
>
> Antonin

Re: [9fans] replica question

[Antonin Vecera]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Pietro Gagliardi <pietro10@mac.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but I got screwed by that too. -s only works if there is a conflict.
> You'll have to manually copy it from /n/sources/plan9/. Type
>
>        9fs sources
>        cp /n/sources/plan9/rc/bin/termc /rc/bin/termrc

There is no conflict. I copied it as you wrote. After that I had local
termrc with different time compared to termrc in sources. I did pull -
and no changes, no conflicts. I don't understand. I expected conflict
because of different modification time.

Antonin

Re: [9fans] replica question

[Pietro Gagliardi]

On Jul 6, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Antonin Vecera wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> can somebody help me with replica/pull ...
>
> I made some changes to /rc/bin/termrc . After that I decided to move
> my changes to /rc/bin/termrc.local and restore termrc . I did:
>
>     replica/pull -v -s rc/bin/termrc /dist/replica/network
>
> I expected restoration of termrc to actual distribution version but
> nothing happend. Why?
>
> (I solved it with "yesterday" command but I would like to know why I
> was not successful with pull command)
>
>
> Antonin
>

Sorry, but I got screwed by that too. -s only works if there is a
conflict. You'll have to manually copy it from /n/sources/plan9/. Type

	9fs sources
	cp /n/sources/plan9/rc/bin/termc /rc/bin/termrc

[9fans] replica question

[Antonin Vecera]

Hello all,

can somebody help me with replica/pull ...

I made some changes to /rc/bin/termrc . After that I decided to move
my changes to /rc/bin/termrc.local and restore termrc . I did:

     replica/pull -v -s rc/bin/termrc /dist/replica/network

I expected restoration of termrc to actual distribution version but
nothing happend. Why?

(I solved it with "yesterday" command but I would like to know why I
was not successful with pull command)


Antonin