[sf-lug] directory tree organization question
jim
jim at systemateka.com
Mon Mar 14 15:12:28 PDT 2011
me, too. i've got tarballs by the dozens. i try
to save important stuff in the important tarball(s).
email is in the email tarball(s). most all of it is
crap that i'll never look at again; if only i knew
which.
On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 14:26 -0500, Jason Turner wrote:
> Good attitude, IMHO.
>
> You're doing a lot of meta-tagging in your dir structure. How long
> before one of the linux filesystems has a feature that does this for
> you -- similar to the Smart Folders concept in many email
> clients(using virtual folders again)? While one could write one's own
> script to create smart tags like this, it seems a lot less
> headache(and not much to ask these days) to have all this managed by
> the filesytem.
>
> (This is where someone keeping up with proposed changes in filesystem
> dev circles chimes in).
>
> Jim, thanks for sharing your system. You've made me think about my
> own. Which, to be honest, has most often involved me giving up on
> smart archival methods and just deleting gigs wily nily(usually to
> lessen the pain of backups). Then crying about it sometime later. And
> then a little later, forgetting what I cried about...
>
> --
> Jt
>
>
>
> jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
> hiya, jason! it was the symlink business that i thought did
> not address the naming issue. as to directory structure, i've
> decided the following: current/ # stuff i'm currently working
> on this/ # stuff i'm likely to work on but is not in current/
> this/bak/ # copies of stuff that's important this/old/ # stuff
> i probably won't look at this/saf/ # copies of stuff that i'm
> currently working with this/yearbeforelast/ # stuff that's
> older than old /old/this/yearbeforeyearbeforelast/ # probably
> obvious /bak/this/ # identical to this/bak/ plus older stuff i
> want you raise an interesting point: the current technology is
> so different in degree from the technologies of the 1970s and
> 1980s that there are strategic differentiations that have
> resulted from the changes in degree. storage capacity to some
> degree has become a non-issue. got lots of new, modern media
> files? get yourself some multi-terrabyte drives, no problem.
> but the namespace issue persists: do i set up lots of shallow
> directories or few deep directories? my brain didn't get
> bigger in the last few decades: i still have an upper limit of
> areas i can manage as well as an upper limit as to the detail
> of any one area. i may have learned something useful: don't
> take anything very seriously: tolerate exceptions, just
> remember i'm gonna have to manage them. On Sun, 2011-03-13 at
> 15:53 -0500, Jason Turner wrote: > It's [meta] information
> mgmt questions like this that reveal just how > confused I've
> become. Once upon a time, I might have had a strong opinion >
> about this but have been bitten every which route I traveled
> so... > > My first thought was similar to Bill's, I think. Do
> both! If you can > "afford it"(extra disk space, filesystem
> limits on inodes, certain disk > operations being a little(or
> a lot) more expensive). Specifically, I > think I'd put "OLD"
> in subdirs in the physical disk and create a top level > /OLD
> "virtual" directory with symlinks. That just appeals to some >
> possibly irrational sense of organization to me. Perhaps you'd
> prefer to > go the other way? > > But you've already said that
> this approach "doesn't resolve the naming > strategic
> question". And I'm not sure I follow you. If you did decide >
> that you wanted a copy of OLD on removable media, then no
> problem in my > "expensive" setup, right? I just presume disks
> are getting bigger if you > wonder why I'm nonchalant about
> incurring that expense. > > I think I'll stop digging my hole.
> I'm thinking about updating from my >
> getting-a-little-long-in-tooth G4 laptop so whatever you
> decide, let us > know! > > -- > jt > > > > > symlinks solves
> the problem of leanness in the > > working directories, but
> doesn't resolve the naming > > strategic question. > > And
> what if I want the OLD stuff on some external, > > removeable
> media? I might be able to put up with the > > occasional
> inconvenience of waiting to access old > > stuff until I get
> home or hook up the external storage.... > > thanks! > > > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 10:13 -0800, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 09:19:32PM -0800, jim wrote: > >>
> > > >> > crikey, ken! that's a good thought, too! > >> > > >>
> > maybe i should do both? have a top-level > >> > OLD/ tree
> for some stuff and for other > >> > stuff have OLD
> subdirectories, kind of > >> > like the various bin/ and lib/
> and other > >> > directories scattered around the system. > >>
> > >> What about symlinks? > >> > >> Have OLD/x/y/z > >> > >>
> and then use symbolic links in your new tree...? > >> > >>
> x/y/z/OLD -> ~/OLD/x/y/z > >> > >> *shrug* > >> > >> -bill! >
> >> > >>
> ______________________________________________________________
> > >> sf-lug mailing list > >> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com > >>
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug > >> Information
> about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/ > > > > > >
> ______________________________________________________________
> > > sf-lug mailing list > > sf-lug at linuxmafia.com > >
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug > > Information
> about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/ > > > > > >
> ______________________________________________________________
> > sf-lug mailing list > sf-lug at linuxmafia.com >
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug > Information
> about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/ >
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
More information about the sf-lug
mailing list