Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 20 Jun 1996 23:50:18 -0100 (GMT-0100) | From | Marco Mariani <> | Subject | Re: Unlinking running executables, was: Re: SCSI Woes |
| |
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Michael Weller wrote:
> This comes from how a unix fs works. Each file on the disk has an inode and > all directory entries just contain pointers to this inode (this is actually > why it is possible to have several hard links to the very same file under > a unix FS which cannot be done easily on a FAT system (don't confuse that > with symlinks)).
Oh, those are the little things which make the difference between a real OS and a joke. BTW, I asked myself what Linus meant by saying that NT is a joke. Is it just performance, scalability, core implementation issues, or what? If some of you are not scared of NT as a rival in the year 1999, when it will most probably (I guess) be shipped OEM in entry-level systems, I'd like to know the reasons. Will 2000 be The Year Of The Penguin?
(I wonder, is this the place to talk about that non-tecnical issue? One of the reasons I read this list is to know what the kernel people think about the future of Linux as a ruler of the world. It makes me.. optimistic and happy)
> A similar technique can be used to produce temporary scratch disk files which > do not have a name and are discarded after use (there is a libc function > for that).
I reckon, I've read that on the Stevens, silly me. But somehow at the moment I though that the file name was still in place until the program finished.
> However, the background process still writes into the logfile which thus > still is on the disk and eats up space. Only when the batch job terminates > the file will be removed physically and the disk space used is freed.
So, the undelete implementation via a daemon which keeps the files open should not be the way to go, because I wouldn't want the undelete capability being limited by the number of fd's the daemon can hold.
I've tried the undel: VFS of mc, and it comes quite handy when I type "rm * .bak" on a single-user system, but it misses the file names. Is there a place where file names could be kept after deletion? Maybe by replicating the file name in the i-node as a mount option? (uhm, I can't see any pads :-)
> Hope this clears things up,
Thank you (and who replied) for being so polite.
All The Best, Marco
Drop a nuke on Redmondland.
|  |