Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!zorba!dtynan
From: jrg@Apple.COM (John R. Galloway Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.unix
Subject: Do you REALLY need hard links?
Keywords: links hard symbolic
Message-ID: <3718@zorba.Tynan.COM>
Date: 18 Jul 90 06:46:59 GMT
Sender: dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM
Organization: Galloway Research
Lines: 30
Approved: dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM

[ Moderators Note:-
  Here's one good reason - speed!  It is a lot faster to follow a hard
  link than a symbolic link.  - Der  ]

I am interested to know what uses people routinely have for hard links that
could not be equally well served by symbolic links.  Obviously the difference
is that if the target of the link moves or is deleted, the hard link still
works while the symbolic link does not.  I am NOT interested in hearing if
theoretically this is a problem (this includes internal issues like . and ..)
but, in your real daily use (not imagined or possible use), would only having
symbolic links be a problem?  For me, it would not (unless there are some hidden
on my system I don't know about :-)

The issue is that reference counts are a pain for a new file system I
am working on and I would like to get rid of them and it seems like hard links
are difficult without them (or some global garbage collection scheme which I
don't want either).

Please respond to jrg@galloway.sj.ca.us and I will post the results, and
please note further that this has nothing to do with apple (I just haven't
got the news feed on galloway set up yet).
Thanks!
	-jrg
-- 
internet     jrg@apple.com      John R. Galloway, Jr.
(soon to be) jrg@galloway.sj.ca.us
applelink    d3413              CEO..receptionist         795 Beaver Creek Way
human       (408) 259-2490      Galloway Research         San Jose, CA  95133

These are my views, NOT Apple's, I am a GUEST here, not an employee!!