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:2.595 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site