Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 22 Jun 1996 21:32:31 -0500 (CDT) | From | Rich Tollerton <> | Subject | Re: , Drawbacks of implementing undelete entirely in user space |
| |
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
> I would think that , such an automatic expiration process could be handled > in a daemon, rather than in the kernel. Such an fs monitor could also > serve as a dropping-point for such files; a certain portion of disk space > or a separate (encrypted? gzipped? jk 8^) partition could be set aside > for such files, providing a bulkhead against out-of-control , "deleted > files". Undelete is always and necessarily a hit-or-miss thing, so a > limit on undeleted files would be acceptable.
Not even that - a crontab entry containing a shell/perl script that would remove files from .wastebasket after a 'days since modified'/number of files in .wastebasket/size of .wastebasket would be simple to program and very small (I'd think under 5k). Then rename rm to something else that script (and people who really really want to delete their files) can call, and make a new rm that moves the file to the .wastebasket and writes its path in a data file. Total modification size, including both rms and man pages would be under 50k.
Lost anybody there? :) ______________________________________________________________________________ Rich Tollerton rtollert@mail.coin.missouri.edu
NOTE: rich is NOT the usename you want to send to - send to rtollert instead. It has to do with Pine not being able to use a different username for POP servers other than the one it's being run under.... suggestions welcome.
|  |