On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, David Drum wrote:

...

How could Microsoft have foreseen this problem and written their apps accordingly?

behavior all this time? Why can't the CIFS users just RTFM and configure the NetApp so that it works the way they need? NetApp is thumbing its nose at the installed base of (UNIX) users, who will now have to restore the old default configuration. Just my Microsoft rant of the day.

* the initial loss of service from the obscure broken default configuration, and "can't get there from here" routes.

* the semi-pseudo-standard for sharing services between M$ and *nix

* the time ultimately "wasted" in these discussions

* the mounting frustration especially from the end users to their admins

* the "OH WELL" hopeless attitude of the pressured admin

These are each a carefully crafted element of Micro$oft's plan. They lead up to two main choices: we'll follow the immediate short term path of least resistance, succumbing to the defaults and breaking our systems around Micro$oft's -- or we'll be so angry we'll want to waste our energy ranting rather than creating new ideas. This is the sum of their business plan. The people at M$ are parasites -- an example of what not to do -- the opposite of good. Even things they do that resemble benevolence, can't be trusted in the end. We can learn about our OWN problems with sharing and playing nice, from their example. Netapp provides us with yet another of the countless options that we affluent, free-thinking admins have, to emulate the "enemy", and route our lesser-ethical colleagues into open standards. For a hefty fee, Netapp's products can be used to swallow up the buzzing standards and re-export your IDEAS as signal, not noise. If they didn't cost a gazillion dollars, everyone would have one. Sorry if this was tough to read; I'm feeling particularly dense today :)

"We each pay a fabulous price for our visions of paradise, but a spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission." This email licensed under the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy).

Chad,

find is a very powerful command! You should be able to accomplish this with the the following syntax:

find . -name .snapshot -prune -o -print

This will prevent find from examining any files under .snapshot. See the man page for find.

good luck,

--calvin

________________________________________________________________________ Calvin Gluck mailto:cgluck@ti.com On loan to Texas Instruments ASP Workstation Support from Ajilon Inc. "Contents may have settled during shipping."

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Chad H. Tudor wrote:

Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:54:20 -0800 (PST) From: "Chad H. Tudor" chtudor@stanford.edu To: Tom Reingold tommy@bell-labs.com Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: can't see ~snapshot directory

:Let's be fair. snapshots are strange. They are links to files, but :they appear to be duplicates. We had to provide our unix users with :a new "du" command so it wouldn't traverse snapshots.

This raises another question.

Would there be a find laying about that ignores same?

Chad

Chad H Tudor     System Administrator     Highwire Press
      chtudor@stanford.edu      http://highwire.stanford.edu

: find . -name .snapshot -prune -o -print

While this is really helpful; the find would not be for me, as I do understand how find operates and more importantly I understand the command man 'splat'. What I do have is a shop full of folks who do not and it would be easier if I could point them to a specific biniary.

I have seen a postings on the amanda-users mailing list for snapshot-aware find and tar commands. I believe they were patched versions of gnu-fileutils. You should be able to dig up the articles at http://www.egroups.com.

Kelly -- Kelly Setzer setzer@telalink.net The Telalink Corporation (615) 321-9100 x237 Fax: (615) 321-9110