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!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEVbE9o2D2lE5fhoVsizG+tUDUMMoFAmbk3b4ACgkQizG+tUDU MMqN3w/+IlBhkltO3YQQ1tFB3zpK14GuKm8bqpaZ441n3QOIFqznxoJWpQD8Foik XjbSrieFEd7E+09F0fKUJ2jguh95EIBv8S2CzSaEEZ2oVBI4L5qaX/wgy7rO228s s+d6ekXrnxntQCyHDCiONPcI2yl1zzm7X6DE/JeFCbfNESu2XyiCvaO4gscyA3nY vfOebu1eH42dG4N77+MIzCl0PKB/QVXzKxOUGtn1nAEVB4PZtpdEkDwNqPkg3sdz JKoOYX3MT46lj8mt8+WhlM+LACFPRs7kGGq7vR6Kk32X6mJXGtiwNHLPii0Nvq/G uGkCgFbtQhubRthuzaaoA1WvdfwotRVEK6ScfeSDOSwmHUm0EKWIxBQ9s+izUo/V IXZceDUjSOO3riUUcX9vepLNVg488oIeyWureO3v8cr/1Kg1QFOgzYQor93CWnMH xcvV3INPIaUIO+aSkAkQFhedGjgMd+1HuaOYhSVgBlsvD+hObCtduwf/Wynp5lwG Op6SVyAC0FdL8govzlzCNPs4vgc/4oF1Wb1sIaon7Nu89NBZE1RDAuZi+/q5bhyD nnYm0QmDYLO4qIOB1nlgbl7IDzSs9cI3UhgWbL30hwSLSXj5xG0b/zM2CmB4UJ9N 60njmZFiAh8uOzeSye2WT51pQFcaPh9aH8O6Jnf9B9Z+FfRL82k=
=gPha
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)