Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #289462
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! |
| Date | 2015-04-13 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D15161E4.4A135%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <mgge2o$q7f$1@dont-email.me> <D151296C.4A0CE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mggs5o$ipb$1@dont-email.me> <D1515160.4A10D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mgh2r9$h17$1@dont-email.me> |
On 4/13/15, 11:45 AM, in article mgh2r9$h17$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Snit wrote: > >> On 4/13/15, 9:52 AM, in article mggs5o$ipb$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >> >>>>> Apple most likely won't ever use it. They might inspire themselves off >>>>> of it to make their own filesystem but I just don't see them using an >>>>> open-source filesystem, especially since these tend to continuously >>>>> evolve and potentially break things along the way. >>>>> >>>> Well, they would need something that works with Time Machine... unless >>>> they kept Time Machine on its current file system for now. As it is they >>>> have HFS+ set up a bit differently for it than for the main drive (I >>>> think). >>> >>> I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to adapt their Time Machine >>> hardware and software to be used on an open-source filesystem. Nothing >>> is set in stone the way I see it. >> >> They could - but right now Time Machine uses hard linked directories. This >> is something that is generally *not* allowed on Linux / UNIX systems but >> it makes it so Time Machine can be much more efficient. A good write up of >> it is here: >> >> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/14/> >> ----- >> Time Machine goes one step further. Historically, Unix has only >> allowed hard links to files. In Leopard, Apple has included the >> ability to make hard links to directories. This has not been >> allowed in Unix because it can lead to all sorts of very nasty >> infinite loops during file look-ups. Of course, symbolic links can >> create loops too, but they're a lot easier to detect and prevent >> since symbolic links are easily distinguished from normal files. >> But as discussed earlier, every file is essentially a hard link, >> and all hard links have equal standing in the eyes of the OS, >> making loop detection a bit trickier. >> >> Nevertheless, the benefits for Time Machine were substantial >> enough for Apple to (carefully) add this ability to Leopard. For >> example, if the entire /System directory has not changed since the >> last backup, Time Machine just has to make a single hard link to >> that directory in the new backup folder. Without support for hard >> links to directories, Time Machine would have to create 18,744 >> directories containing a total of 68,839 hard links to files >> (using numbers from my /System directory). >> >> Yes, directories are small and hard links only take up the room >> necessary for their directory entries (at minimum, enough to store >> the name and a pointer to the data on disk), but those bytes add >> up fast when you're talking tens of thousands of hard links being >> created every time you want to do a backup. Hard links to >> directories make this all much simpler and more efficient. > > > So you actually learned something from my claim that hardlinks are dangerous That is from Ars Technica. Not you. And I read that well before we talked here... and already knew of hard links before then. >> This capability, as far as I know, does not exist on Linux. > > Sure it does. It is just not allowed, the tools to create links will not > create them for directories. So it exists but is not allowed. Um, that is not really existing. > *If* you knew at'least the most trivial things about unix in general, you > would know that a directory in unix is also just a file. Nobody said otherwise. Nobody hinted otherwise. > It just gets a flag combination that denotes it as a directory instead of a > normal file. otherwise it is a bog standard file. And hard links are made to > files. Remove the test for directories in the ln-program, and it will make > hardlinks to directories. With all of the possible nasties, which not just > include infinite loops, but also complete data loss (remove a hard linked > directory, and you will possibly lose *all* its content) Remove the *last* hard link. >>> If Microsoft was able to make its operating systems run on FAT32 as >>> easily as on NTFS, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be able to modify >>> something which is essentially a lot more trivial. >> >> Apple has done some things which are generally not "legal" on most file >> systems - though how hard it would be for them to change these things or >> to allow them on these other file systems I do not know. >> >> But, sure, they could. And even if it makes it where they have to make >> more links, the speed would likely not be much of an issue because other >> file systems are faster. The storage space benefits might not be possible >> on other systems though. >> >> I will leave it to Peter to give a detailed explanation of how it could be >> done as well on Linux... after all he is the expert. :) > > I just did. Naturally you will not understand anything of it LOL! You pretended to know things others did not. But, hey, you were mostly correct. Not bad for you! -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-12 21:03 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 19:34 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-13 05:21 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 21:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-13 01:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 02:17 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 14:13 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 06:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 15:30 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 10:49 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:58 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:59 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-13 11:54 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:58 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:18 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:32 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:24 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:54 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-14 09:00 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 14:26 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 09:09 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 09:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Charlie Croyden <charlescroyden3@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 06:14 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 09:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 15:58 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 10:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 16:22 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 10:52 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 17:25 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:01 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 13:25 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-14 10:30 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 10:57 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:55 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:56 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 18:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 15:25 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 16:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 16:38 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 17:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 18:36 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 15:39 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 20:19 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 09:55 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 12:14 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 17:41 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 00:50 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-14 20:29 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 19:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-15 08:35 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 22:40 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:36 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-14 20:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-15 07:15 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 08:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:01 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 10:19 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 10:28 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 18:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 15:21 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-14 15:27 +0100
Does "Ezekiel" agree? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:07 -0500
Re: Does "Ezekiel" agree? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 11:20 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 10:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-14 10:02 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 00:55 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-15 14:14 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-15 17:19 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 09:04 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 23:35 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 19:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 18:00 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 23:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 18:00 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 08:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 14:11 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 10:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:41 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 19:25 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:18 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 21:55 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:48 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:26 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 10:50 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:46 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:53 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 08:51 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:56 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 11:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:32 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:50 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 20:15 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 08:51 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 08:06 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:52 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 10:56 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 20:45 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 12:07 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 21:43 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 12:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 22:08 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 13:34 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 13:31 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:35 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:43 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:30 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:35 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:39 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:49 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:50 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 23:11 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 23:08 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 23:37 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 17:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:43 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 13:00 -0400
csiph-web