On Wed, 13 October 2004 19:01:04 +0200, Olivier Poitrey wrote: > J�rn Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > New-variant cowlinks are closer to symlinks than anything else. > > Like symlinks they allocate an extra inode per link. Like fast > > symlinks for ext[23] they store the link information in the inode > > itself. > > > > Still, don't think of it as a symlink, it's not. Close, but > > different. > > I think it's a very good idea, but do you know if mmaping several > cow-linked files that way would give us the same benefits than > (sym)links which is to have it only once into memory?
Yes, provided you opened the file read-only. I'm very concerned about memory as well. No matter how much I cram into my machines, it's never enough. ;) J�rn -- To recognize individual spam features you have to try to get into the mind of the spammer, and frankly I want to spend as little time inside the minds of spammers as possible. -- Paul Graham _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
