On Sat, 10 Mar 2018, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 9/3/18 9:11 am, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 07:59 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> >> It is my understanding that currently when a file copied to any
> >> location, a physical copy is not produced, the copy is a hardlink
> >> to the original file, until such time as one of the "copies" is
> >> changed and then both become physical files with one file
> >> reflecting the pre-change contents
> > What you describe here is linking, not copying. Copying always
> > produces an apparently independent file ('Apparently' because on
> > Copy-On-Write filesystems they two may actually share disk blocks
> > until one of them changes, but that is *not* the same as linking).
> No, what I was mentioning here is what I have read as standard linux
> functionality with copying, when a file is copied, and it doesn't
> matter where to, rather than create a 2nd copy of the file, the
> "copy" is created as a hard link to the original file, for storage
> efficiency, and then when one of the files is updated the hardlink
> is broken and both files become physical.
AFAIK, "copying" in unix/linux has never worked that way; if you can
provide a link that describes it that way, that would be interesting.
rday
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
