Subject: Re: Aliases: Are alternate filesystems worth trying?
From: Matthew Keller (kellermg@potsdam.edu)
Date: Sat May 19 2001 - 13:10:36 EDT
From a programatic design standpoint, Netatalk needs to be
filesystem dumb for maximum portability. These problem need to be
overcome internally. Sure, we could have a --with-xfs switch (just
as an example) which can optimize itself for any given filesystem,
but there still needs to be internal resolution of this issue.
On 18 May 2001 13:32:19 -0400, Richard Goldman wrote:
> Dear People,
>
> A question, please, and your knowledge, and even guesses would
> be much appreciated:
>
> I know from previous discussion that Macintosh aliases become
> "unhinged" from the files or directories they are supposed to point
> to because the alias contains some kind of ID (did? inode?) that
> gets recycled by Linux. Because of this (and the fact that the
> absolute path of the file isn't stored in the alias), the Mac alias can
> end up pointing somewhere else entirely. At least such is my
> understanding.
>
> So here's the question:
>
> Is it Linux itself, at some "virtual" filesystem level, that is re-cycling
> these ID's, or is it due to the nature and operations of the ext2
> filesystem?
>
> Put another way, is the alias problem (re: 1.5pre6 and previous)
> endemic to Linux, or do you think I'll have better luck if I try another
> filesystem (managable under Linux) such as ReiserFS or ext3 or
> ???
>
> Thank you in advance for your time and thoughts.
>
> Sincerely,
> Richard
>
>
--Matthew Keller Enterprise System Analyst Computing & Technology Services Information Services Division State University of NY at Potsdam Potsdam, NY USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 03:04:40 EDT