From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272223AbTGYQzT (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:55:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272224AbTGYQzT (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:55:19 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:2827 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272223AbTGYQzP (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:55:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:10:23 -0700 From: Mike Fedyk To: ahljoh@uni.de Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: directory inclusion in ext2/ext3 Message-ID: <20030725171023.GL1176@matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: ahljoh@uni.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030724034833.5D63B371@mendocino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030724034833.5D63B371@mendocino> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 05:48:34AM +0200, Johannes Halmann wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:00:17 +0200 Mike Fedyk wrote: > >> my idea of solving this is to have > >> an inclusion directive in directory-files... > >> > >> has nobody ever felt the lack of such functionality?? > > > What exactly does this help you to do? > > What do you want to accomplish? > > hmm, i have a lot of huge files on different hard drives and wish to access > them in a uniform fashion. i would like to sort ALL files in subdirectories > but have no need for an LVM, RAID or similar. for example: > > /mnt/drive1/category1 > /mnt/drive1/category2 > /mnt/drive2/category1 > /mnt/drive2/category2 > > (the data is so huge, that it is not possible to always merge categories on a > single disk!) > what i would like to do now is to be able to display all files of "cat1" and > "cat2" respectively in "/mnt/union/category1" and "/mnt/union/category2". yet > i don't wish to simply link the directories as this would complicate access > with growing number of hard drives the data is spread on! > > it's a bit weird to explain, i hope it's understandable now :-))) Yes, I understand a little better. But it just looks more like a good use for LVM than before. You don't want the redundancy of raid, and are always adding space, so LVM should be perfect for you. Just use a nice filesystem that resizes easily, (or even online (while mounted, etc)), and you're set. Mike