| 1 |
Am 05.05.2010 15:34, schrieb Stroller: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 5 May 2010, at 07:54, Iain Buchanan wrote: |
| 4 |
>> ... |
| 5 |
>> I'm looking for some kernel-based notification of changes to my file |
| 6 |
>> system. I've been looking at inotify, but it's not exactly what I want. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Basically I want to know if _any_ write occurs anywhere. I don't want |
| 9 |
>> to register a whole bunch of files to watch, I just want to watch an |
| 10 |
>> entire mount. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> man inotify(7): |
| 13 |
> ... When a directory is monitored, inotify will return events for the |
| 14 |
> directory itself, and for files inside the directory. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Am I missing something? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> This article was posted to a different froup recently: |
| 21 |
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-inotify/index.html |
| 22 |
> It looks interesting. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Stroller. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
To repeat my comment on Iain's original "backup to a cold-swap drive" |
| 29 |
thread, Inotify has two drawbacks which make it hard or even impossible |
| 30 |
to use for Iain's use case: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
a) It does not work recursively which means that you have to create a |
| 33 |
new handle for each subdirectory. Of course, this only means more work |
| 34 |
for the programmer but there is also the problem that |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
b) As far as I know, Inotify does not scale very good, at least not good |
| 37 |
enough to monitor a whole system. /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches |
| 38 |
is 65535 on my system. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
On the other hand, I've never tried to increase that limit and just let |
| 41 |
it run on a deep directory structure. Who knows, maybe it actually works. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Hope this helps, |
| 44 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives