From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Finding hardlinks Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:46:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20070109234637.GC7798@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1168359985.7817.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steven Rostedt , arjan@infradead.org, bhalevy@panasas.com, jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, matthew@wil.cx, Miklos Szeredi , mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, nfsv4@ietf.org Return-path: Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:55849 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932548AbXAIXqs (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 18:46:48 -0500 To: Bryan Henderson Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue 2007-01-09 15:43:14, Bryan Henderson wrote: > >but you can get a large number of >1 linked > >files, when you copy full directories with "cp -rl". Which I do a lot > >when developing. I've done that a few times with the Linux tree. > > Can you shed some light on how you use this technique? (I.e. what does it > do for you?) > > Many people are of the opinion that since the invention of symbolic links, > multiple hard links to files have been more trouble than they're worth. I > purged the last of them from my personal system years ago. This thread > has been a good overview of the negative side of hardlinking; it would be > good to see what the positives are. git uses hardlinks heavily, AFAICT. And no, you can't symlink two linux source trees against each other, edit on both randomly, and expect result to work... can you? While hardlinks + common editors were designed to enable that IIRC. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html