[Box Backup-dev] "setlimit 0 (...) back with vengeance (Was: Proposal (patch): bbstored HousekeepingStyle mod)

[G.]

Chris,=0A=0A> This is a client-side problem. We should probably treat a lim=
it of zero as =0A> a special case on the client, and ignore it, trying to s=
tay below the hard=0A=0AI am not sure I follow... If this is (exclusively) =
a problem on the client side, how come it has worked fine under i686/CentOS=
 and suddenly broke under AMD64/Ubuntu? My Win32 bbstored (your general tre=
e) executable was exactly the same in both cases.=0A=0A> I'm very slightly =
against modifying bbstored's housekeeping in this case, =0A> since it requi=
res more work than modifying bbackupd's store full logic.=0A=0ANo, we're lu=
cky here, I actually implemented this stuff already (but backed off from it=
), and it turns out to be a rather very simple patch. Actually, running a d=
ifferent housekeeping style allows housekeeping to calculate the number of =
out-of-date/deleted blocks precisely, and run that exact number through the=
 block removal code.=0A=0AHowever, even if we patch bbackupd, the question =
whether a (low) soft-limit should have any effect whatsoever on >>new<< fil=
e upload still remains...?=0A=0AGary=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A______________=
______________________________________________________________________=0ANo=
w that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels=0Ain 45,000 destina=
tions on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.=0Ahttp://farechase.yahoo.com/promo=
-generic-14795097