| 1 |
On Sat, 14 May 2016 18:23:10 +0200, hw wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> Using 'chmod -R g+w $#' isn't very appealing, and how safely does it |
| 4 |
> >> handle file names? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > What is unappealing about it? I've never had any problem with file |
| 7 |
> > names, but I don't use odd ones. You could quote the $@/$# just in |
| 8 |
> > case, although if there's no shell expansion taking place it |
| 9 |
> > shouldn't be necessary. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Using 'chmod -R' is unappealing because changing access rights for |
| 12 |
> so-many-thousand or so directory-entries once per minute might |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Why would you be running it every minute? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> wear out the SSDs sooner than otherwise. It might make things |
| 17 |
> worse that the file system is that of a KVM VM residing in a sparse |
| 18 |
> file on these SSDs. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> And it may lead to confusion of the users when they suddenly can |
| 21 |
> write to files they couldn't write to a few seconds before. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Chmod is run when files are created or modified, and only on those files. |
| 24 |
There is no timing involved, except for the fraction of a second it takes |
| 25 |
for incrond to receive and act upon the inotify message. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Politics: Poli (many) - tics (blood sucking parasites) |
Archives