On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Erik Mouw <mouw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:08:12AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > i'm reading some documentation that claims that neither ext3 device > > files nor symlinks cost you any data blocks in the filesystem. sure, > > that's obvious with device files, but symlinks? > > > > i always thought that symlinks cost you a single data block -- just > > enough to store the actual character value of the file being linked > > to. the only way i could see that not being true was if the ext3 > > inode allocated some space internally to hold that information for > > suitably short filenames, but i've perused the ext3_inode structure in > > include/linux/ext3_fs.h and i don't see that unless i'm just missing > > it. > > > > thoughts? can anyone clarify this? thanks. > > Most if not all classic Unix filesystems I know store the destination > of the symlink directly in the inode itself, usually in the space that > is normally used for the block list (direct, indirect, double indirect > and triple indirect blocks). If the destination name is longer than the > required space, they will allocate a data block for it instead. > > > Erik Robert, You might also want to look into how Extended Attributes are stored (ie. Like ACLs). I assume they use inode blocks as well, but for many / most filesystems they have been grafted into the design after the fact. Greg -- Greg Freemyer Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer First 99 Days Litigation White Paper - http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/99%20Days%20whitepaper.pdf The Norcross Group The Intersection of Evidence & Technology http://www.norcrossgroup.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
