Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:41:41 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: spork@bway.net Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unable to pwd in ZFS snapshot Message-ID: <201012270141.oBR1ffno070894@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1012261912460.43483@hotlap.local> References: <E1PWkzd-0006J0-OC@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> <20101226073156.GA84868@mail.hs.ntnu.edu.tw> <E1PWmXV-00085C-NK@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <alpine.OSX.2.00.1012261912460.43483@hotlap.local>, spork@bway.net writes: >Other gotchas would be some of the periodic scripts - you don't want >locate.updatedb traversing all that, or the setuid checks. locate.updatedb in 9-current doesn't do that, by default. Arguably you want the setuid checks to do it, so that you're aware of setuid executables that are buried in old snapshots -- particularly if you keep old snapshots of /usr around after a security update. >Also I know I'm prone to sometimes doing a brute-force "find" which >can also dip into those hundreds of snapshot dirs. In general, I >think having the directories hidden is a good default. I could see the logic in having find not descend into .zfs directories by default (if done in a sufficiently general way), although then you'd have to introduce a new flag "yes, really, look at everything!" for cases when that's not desirable. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201012270141.oBR1ffno070894>