lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.048 / U:2.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site