dave@murphy.UUCP (H. Munster) (11/01/86)
Summary: around here, symlinks save a lot of disk space Line eater: yep In article <1059@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (System Mangler) types: >Symbolic links are too expensive to use freely. They take up >an inode and 1K of disk space, just to hold a few characters. >They carry all the baggage of a regular inode (atime, mtime, >links, owner, group, mode) but you can't make proper use of >any of it. That may be, but I've rather have a symbolic link taking up a 1k block than make a copy of a 10M file. --- It's been said by many a wise philosopher that when you die and your soul goes to its final resting place, it has to make a connection in Atlanta. Dave Cornutt, Gould Computer Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL UUCP: ...{sun,pur-ee,brl-bmd}!gould!dcornutt or ...!ucf-cs!novavax!houligan!dcornutt ARPA: wait a minute, I've almost got it... "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."
guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) (11/05/86)
> That may be, but I've rather have a symbolic link taking up a 1k block > than make a copy of a 10M file. That may be, but if you'd read Don Speck's original article carefully, you'd have seen that he did NOT suggest doing away with symbolic links; he suggested that they be implemented as a different kind of directory entry - one containing two path names, presumably - rather than as a different kind of inode. -- Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com (or guy@sun.arpa)