From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jim owens Subject: Re: Mass-Hardlinking Oops Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:07:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4AD3705A.5000000@hp.com> References: <4A74401B.90801@mccme.ru> <87my3y3r8u.fsf@faran.nsc.liu.se> <4AD35667.3020103@hp.com> <200910121909.56545.kreijack@alice.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Goffredo Baroncelli Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200910121909.56545.kreijack@alice.it> List-ID: Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > I don't know a software which need so many hard links. But it easy to find > some similar cases. > > For example under my "/usr/bin" I have 478 _"soft links"_ to _different_ > files. Hard link is not used in place of soft link... soft link is a different and preferred addition to posix style systems. So don't think we need more hard links just because you find apps using soft links. > When a directory is created, its ".." entry is a hard link to the "parent" > directory. For example the /usr/share/doc directory has 2828 "hard links" > because it has 2826 children directories. Max subdirectories per directory is again a different feature. btrfs does not use "hard link count" for subdirectories. That association of "hard links-2" == "max subdirs" is only a legacy of the design of some filesystems such as UFS. > These cases are different cases. But the 311 "hard link to the same file under > the same directory" limit may be too strong. Not now but in the next format > change I think that it would be useful to remove this limit. I would agree if the cost was 0, but it increases a field size so it would be nice to have a justified need. But it is Chris's call. jim