Am Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 01:19:00AM -0500 schrieb Dale: > >> P. S. Planning to try that checksum script soon. It's a large number > >> of files so it will take a long time to run. I think you mentioned that > >> if stopped, it will resume where it left off. > > Only if it creates checksums, because it knows by the existence of > > checksums > > where to resume. But if you want to read checksums and verify them, you > > need > > to use arguments to tell it how many directories to process and how many to > > skip at the beginning. > > > > Perhaps try it first with a few small directories to get a feel for its > > behaviour. The normal way to go is: > > > > dh -u [DIR] to create the checksum files > > dh [DIR] do read it back > > Use the --skip option to skip the given number of dirs at the beginning. > > > > Remember that by default it will not create checksums in directories that > > have subdirectories. I know this sounds a little strange, but for a > > hierarchy of music albums, this seemed sensible 10 years ago. > > > > Well, I read through the help page and settled on this. I might have > did this wrong. ;-) > > /root/dh -c -F 1Checksums.md5 -v > > Right now I have the command in /root. I just did a cd to the parent > directory I wanted it to work on and then ran that command. Right now, > it is working on this bit. > > > (dir 141 of 631) > > and > > (file 8079 of 34061)
I am thinking about adding filesize information, but that would require updating the status line during the processing of a file instead of only between files. That’s not trivial, as it involves timers and threads. > I was wondering tho, is there a way to make it put all the checksum > files in one place, like a directory call checksums, and they just all > go in there? Hm … from an algorithmic point of view, it would actually not be that complicated by creating a shortened filename from the source directory, but the real-world use seems a bit far-fetched. Checksums should be close to their data. If you have read errors for either, then the other is useless anyways. :D > Or just a single file in the parent directory? That way > the files aren't in each directory. That’s what the -s option is for. This will create only one checksum file at the root level for each directory argument. So if you run `dh -us foo/ bar/`, then it will go into foo/, create one checksum file there and put all lines into that one file, even for subdirectories, and do the same in bar/. However, at the moment automatically detecting and properly verifying those files is still in the works. So I think you have to use the -s option or -F all to read them. > Thing is, can I still just run it > on one directory if I have a suspected bad one? Not with one checksum file at the root level for an entire tree. The way I would handle this case: run dh -u on the directory of interest and then compare the checksums in the root-level file and the newly created file with a diff tool. Or copy the lines from the existing checksum file, create a new file in the directory of interest, remove the directory part of the paths and then run dh on just that directory. -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ I don’t have a problem with alcohol, just without!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
