On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 07:48:39AM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On May 18, 2010, at 07:45, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > >> Where do symlinks shine when compared to hardlinks? > > > > They don't.
I can't find the link at the moment but I am pretty sure that hardlinks have a significant performance penalty under HFS compared to symlinks. I recall it being something like 10-fold slower because the hardlinks are kept in a flat file system and HFS would require an rewrite to solve this. > > Well, symlinks would fix the Time Machine issue, wouldn't they? Hardlinks are > indistinguishable (to Time Machine, anyway) from real second copies of files, > so Time Machine backs up twice, doesn't it? With symlinks it wouldn't. Not > saying we should switch back to symlinks, and I know we have a branch in > progress that already fixes this a different way (right?) just pointing out a > case where symlinks have an advantage over hardlinks. > > Personally, I've never made a hardlink, but I've made tons of symlinks. A > standard OS distribution is also filled with symlinks. They can't be so bad. > > _______________________________________________ > macports-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
