On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:44:32 -0000 smi...@zenzebra.mv.com wrote: > Bakul Shah <ba...@bitblocks.com> writes: > > > Ask yourself *why* do you need it. Is it just convenience > > (what you are used to) or is there something you do that > > absolutely requires hard links? Next compare the benefit > > of hardlinks to their cost. It is worth it? > > I'm trying to create a data structure in the form of a directed acyclic > graph (DAG). A file system would be an ideal way to represent the data, > except that P9 exposes no transaction to give a node more than one name.
A FS is not necessarily the ideal way. > I could store the data in a P9 file system tree and maintain a set of > links in, say $home/lib/bindrc.d/myDAG. But, every time I > copy/relocate/distribute the tree, I would have to include the myDAG > bindings. It would be much nicer if the structure of the data embodied > in the data itself. > > ATM, I'm thinking about creating a DAGfs backed by pq. That way, > standard file utilities could still be used be used to manipulate the > data. However, that solution strikes me as being suspiciously similar > to creating a new disk file system. (How many do we have, already?) Not a disk FS, just a naming FS. You can overlay your naming FS on top of an existing disk based FS. In effect each named file in this naming FS maps to a "canonical name" of a disk based file. You can implement linking via a ctl file or something.
