Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: symlinks as directory entries vs. inodes
Message-ID: <4127@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Nov-86 18:16:25 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4127
Posted: Sat Nov  1 18:16:25 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Nov-86 23:37:11 EST
References: <21127@rochester.ARPA> <65@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <3739@umcp-cs.UUCP> <8313@sun.uucp> <1074@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <8551@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 24
Xref: mnetor net.unix:6111 net.unix-wizards:8549

In article <8551@sun.uucp> guy@sun.UUCP writes:
>I presume they just decided the added benefits weren't worth the hassle.

What are the benefits supposed to be again?

Faster name translation?  The namei cache takes care of that.
Indeed, the extra code required to skip over the proposed extra
directory entry when scanning for other names might have more of
a slowing effect than any gain provided by having the contents of
the link at hand.

Less disk space used?  Perhaps; but not much, not unless you have
a large number of symlinks.

Fewer inodes used?  How often does one run out of inodes?  newfs is
very conservative about inode allocation.

All in all, I think writing the contents of the link through an
inode is cleaner.  It certainly helps keep namei, already a large
and ugly routine, from being larger and uglier.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu