From: Jörn Engel (joern_at_wohnheim.fh-wedel.de)
Date: Wed 13 Oct 2004 - 18:46:24 BST
On Wed, 13 October 2004 19:01:04 +0200, Olivier Poitrey wrote:
> Jörn Engel <joern_at_wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> writes:
>
> > New-variant cowlinks are closer to symlinks than anything else.
> > Like symlinks they allocate an extra inode per link. Like fast
> > symlinks for ext[23] they store the link information in the inode
> > itself.
> >
> > Still, don't think of it as a symlink, it's not. Close, but
> > different.
>
> I think it's a very good idea, but do you know if mmaping several
> cow-linked files that way would give us the same benefits than
> (sym)links which is to have it only once into memory?
Yes, provided you opened the file read-only. I'm very concerned about
memory as well. No matter how much I cram into my machines, it's
never enough. ;)
Jörn
-- To recognize individual spam features you have to try to get into the mind of the spammer, and frankly I want to spend as little time inside the minds of spammers as possible. -- Paul Graham _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver