On May 18, 2010, at 18:45, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > On May 18, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > >> 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. > > So, so far we have a number of "interesting assertions" here: > > 1. Hard links don't play nicely with Time Machine > > 2. Hard links are not adequately accounted for by du/Finder/etc in > determining the number of blocks allocated to MacPorts > > 3. Hard links are slower than symlinks under HFS > > Sadly, each and every one of those assertions is also false and would have > been provably false had anyone actually decided to crunch some numbers (or > "try it") for each assertion. Can we try to keep things at least reasonably > factual as we debate the differences in Homebrew vs MacPorts? It will save > time and energy. :-)
I was trying to be factual, but I misremembered my facts. It was not both "du" and Finder "Get Info" that misreport the size; it was only "Get Info." Please see this discussion from last month: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2010-April/019628.html "du -sh" shows one of my MacPorts prefixes takes 1.9 GiB but Finder's Get Info shows it occupies 3.9 GB. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
