OK, I've gotten a couple of private messages about this. I was clearly unclear in what I said.
My issue is that if this is "good enough" for the community (of Linux users), this is good enough to allow this to be integrated into Solaris. Sure, we have no idea how much this will bother Solaris users. Just the same, we have little idea about how much this already bothers Linux users. I am fairly sure that the pain (what ever it is) is about the same for both classes. I'll retract my statement that this is a P4 or P5 bug. Actually, its less than that, because it does conform to its specification, making this into an RFE. If this was a Sun funded project, we as the ARC would certainly question the decision to not support hardlinks. We might even add that as a TCR. However, this is the importation of FOSS. They already made the decision as to if hardlinks should be supported. We just have to live with that choice. We live in a different world than we are accustomed to living in. - jek3 Don Cragun wrote: >> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:41:02 -1000 >> From: Joseph Kowalski <Joseph.Kowalski at sun.com> >> >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >>>> 4.3.4 Unison does not understand hard links. >>>> >>> That's pretty unfortunate. I guess the necessary consequence of this >>> is that Unison my dramatically increase the bandwidth needs and >>> storage needs on the remote side. Imagine synchronizing a 4G ISO >>> image, which also has hardlinks to other names -- instead of >>> transferring and storing one 4G image, you are transferring and >>> storing n * 4G. >>> >> Yea, but who actually does this? The common use of hardlinks went away >> with AT&T supporting UNIX. >> > > Joe, > We do it all the time. Have you forgotten that the cp, ln, and mv > utilities are linked? There are currently 90 links to /usr/bin/ksh93 > on jurassic-x4600. I personally have hard links to several files under > my home directory; they are not multi-gigabyte files, but the > synchronization issue remain the same no matter how big the files are. > > - Don > > >> Another way to put this is, "if its important to Sun, file the P4/5 bug >> to have Sun do the fix". >> > > This sounds a lot more serious to me than a P4/5 bug... > > >> - jek3 >>
