Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place! |
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
 |
02-08-2005, 05:16 AM
|
#1
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: India
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 364
Rep:
|
Sym links and hard links
I was reading about symbolic links and hard links. I'm a little confused about hard links.
Let's say I have a file ~/downloads/gaim.tgz and I make a hard link in ~/
Now, the file ~/gaim.tgz is a hard link that has the same inode number as the original file.
The confusion is that will ~/gaim.tgz actually occupy any space on my disk? Or does it report a size of 4MB because it is linked to the original by the inode number?
In other words, the link is just a reflection of the original, so it "appears" to occupy space, right?
|
|
|
02-08-2005, 05:19 AM
|
#2
|
Senior Member
Registered: May 2004
Location: Hilliard, Ohio, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Kubuntu
Posts: 1,851
Rep:
|
Re: Sym links and hard links
Quote:
Originally posted by akudewan
In other words, the link is just a reflection of the original, so it "appears" to occupy space, right?
|
This is the way I've understood it.
Whereas, a symlink is simply a "pointer" to said file.
|
|
|
02-09-2005, 12:55 AM
|
#3
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: India
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 364
Original Poster
Rep:
|
I see. Thanks very much for the confirmation
|
|
|
02-09-2005, 01:09 AM
|
#4
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: north dakota
Distribution: Gentoo, Debian
Posts: 90
Rep:
|
While we are on this topic, at what point would a hard or a soft link be more beneficial compared to the other. I could look it up I know, and if I don't get a response I will  .
|
|
|
02-09-2005, 06:08 AM
|
#5
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: India
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 364
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Hmm...well the disadvantage of a hard link is that it has to be made on the same partition.
The advantage would be that there is no "pointer" file as a link, but it is a link at a more "hardware" level.
And vice-versa for symbolic links.
I have never used a hard link ever since I started using linux.
If any of you guys have more info, do post it here
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|