datruche wrote:Like you're renaming it single for a reason, or am I mistaking?
I do the renaming way cause it's a quick and easy one. In my book, having all internal and external hard disks numbered, and all USB pendrives as well is a necessity, cause I have dozens of them combined, and I created me an indexing scripting solution that writes the find
and ls -o
into NAME.ls.gz and NAME.find.gz, where the NAME indicated both the device, and the partition, so that, when using zgrep to fine certain file, I get the results which file is to be found on which USB pendrives, or on which internal or external hard drive.
What follows is some brief info about my (pen)drives indexing by scripting solution. From here on it gets off topic
, if you are not interested in reading about that, stop reading right here. Thanks.
By starting with that all that naming and scripting for indexing and finding file purposes, I also started numbering my (pen)drives, and this numbering is not only reflected by the scripts doing the indexing (the searching where the (pen)drive is mounted, if it's mounted at al, and sure also the ls, find and gzip itself) also reflected by an empty file that is kind of the signature what (pen)drive this is, my scripts use these empty files to "know" if the drive is mounted as sda1, or sdb1, or sdf1 or such...
Why do I use empty files for that? Cause they not use any disk space at all (unless on very rare conditions when one entry in the directory means the directory needs to have a new cluster to store this info, but that would have happened to any file; and it's usually not possible with most FS when it comes to the root directory, and these files are all to be found in the root directory of any (pen)drives...
Writing all that I realize that folks might be interested in using a similar system than mine. But the flipside is, when I started coding it I went for easy and quick solution, in the end I made it too complicated and now it is more bothersome to add more entries than it would have been if I thought through everything prior starting the coding for a few days; The only way this would make sense, is kinda releasing my current system to the public, stating what its negative aspects are and when other folks start to tweak what I started, then there could emerge a better, more slick and robust indexing system, which in its core still uses the empty names to describe and define the drives, and also uses the same ls and find and gz for creating the index files themselves, but still would differ in eliminating the bothersome details that my current system hold.
Long reply is, well, long.
If anyone is interested in more details about this indexing via scripting ls and find, or just in discussing is with the little details I wrote above, please PM me, not answer in here, cause: off topic.
I will then create a new thread in the best suited subforum, and we can discuss about this there. Thanks for your understanding and helping in keeping the thread on topic. <B