Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #289476
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! |
| Date | 2015-04-13 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D1517649.4A14D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <mgh2r9$h17$1@dont-email.me> <D15161E4.4A135%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mgh67d$v9e$1@dont-email.me> <D1516DE5.4A144%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mgh7m6$62i$1@dont-email.me> |
On 4/13/15, 1:08 PM, in article mgh7m6$62i$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
...
>>>>> 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.
>
> Nope. I explained it to you when you bragged about Time Machine
> I especially told you that it is extremely dangerous to use
And I noted that the danger exists for general usage but *not* for Time
Machine. Now if you can show *one* example of harm coming from the way Time
Machine handles this I am open to it.
One.
But you will fail.
How do I know? Because you *always* fail. It is your schtick. You make
claims you cannot back.
...
>>>> So it exists but is not allowed. Um, that is not really existing.
>
> It exists. Only the tools have been limited to not do it. That limitation
> can easily be removed, if someone would be stupid enough to follow apples
> suit
You cannot show any problems with what Apple has done but then claim it
would be stupid to do this on other systems. Amazing.
...
>> <http://goo.gl/Ccllc3> gnu.org
>> -----
>> Directories normally have at least two hard links; their . entry is
>> the second one.
>> -----
>>
>> What do you think the first one is?
Gee, no answer from Peter. He has no clue. He has no idea that all files are
hard links.
>> This is fun. :)
>
> Fotr you it isn't fun at all, because you don't understand anything and have
> a hard time to play the "knowledgeable one"
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
remove a hard linked directory, and you will possibly lose *all*
its content
-----
Snit:
-----
Remove the *last* hard link.
-----
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
You are truly the idiot you were always showing here.
------
You screwed up again, Peter. Pick your favorite link from this list:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22all+files+are+hard+links%22>
Really... all files are hard links.
...
>>> Gods, are you dense. You actually "teach" computing? All your "customers"
>>> should demand their money back with interest, because you are the most
>>> incompetent idiot in "teaching computers" out there. A demented cow would
>>> do that job better than you could ever hope
>>
>> You figured out that I was right - remove the *last* hard link to a file
>> and it is gone. This is also true of directories (which as you noted are
>> actually just files anyway).
>
> You can't read at all. *All* files in a hardlinked directory exist only
> once.
Not in contention. Does not matter if you have, as is the norm, two hard
links to the directory or if you have fifty.
Remove the *last* one and all the files are gone.
Seems you are at least on the verge of understanding this.
> If they are not *additionally* hardlinked to a "standard" directory,
> they will be gone completely if you remove such a file in any one of the
> linked directory entries, no matter which one.
Right. Good to see you are getting it.
> They will vanish in all those directories at the same time.
Multiple hard links to the same file (or directory, since directories are
files, too) are just that, multiple links to the same file. They do not
replicate the file (or folder) itself.
From a user perspective I can see where you would think there were multiple
files - but that is not what is happening "under the hood".
> *That* is one of the reasons why hardlinked dirs are offlimits in a sane unix
> setup.
Well, other than that *all* common Unix systems have directories, and since
all files are hard links, all directories are hard links.
But you will get this if you keep working at it. I have faith in you.
Who am I kidding. No, you will never admit to your errors. You simply cannot
show any sign of learning. When have you ever done so?
> It is way too easy to completely remove a file which the user thinks
> exist in several places, but because of the hardlinked directory only a single
> time
Do you think this happens with Time Machine?
--
* 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