Hi,

I was trying to establish a link on an SFS\02-partition. The command responded with: 'MAKELINK: packet request type unknown'.
Does this mean that Makelink is not fully supported? I ask, because it supports links across partitions. This I tested.
But now I want to establish a link within a (SFS\02) partition. It is NOT a circular link I'm trying to establish. The response would indicate such an attempt.

Anyone 'in the know'?

OldFart

Last edited by OldFart on 06-Jan-2009 at 05:34 PM.

_________________
Life is a waste of time.
Time is a waste of life.
Get wasted all the time
and you'll have the time of your life!

@OldFart

Probably only soft links are supported. Try the SOFT keyword.

Bye,
Thomas

_________________
Email: thomas-rapp@web.de
Home: thomas-rapp.homepage.t-online.de

@OldFart
I have some SFS (not o2) partitions and "hard" links don't work with those either. "Soft" links (makelink xxx TO yyy SOFT) work on SFS and probably on SFS/02. Hard links are an Amiga thing, probably designed to save space on floppy disks. Now that SOFT links are fully implemented with OS4, hard links are probably outdated and not necessary. Amiga hard links aren't supported by some other filesystems and best avoided now.

I use a lot of links to keep programs from writing to places that I don't want them to write. You should be aware that most copy programs (C:Copy Dopus4 etc.) will copy the file and not the link. If you back up directories/partitions or move directories you will probably lose the links unless you use drag-n-drop with ASyncWB. ASyncWB seems to copy "hard" links as "soft" links, but they remain links and not copies of the file that was linked to. Even ASyncWB won't copy links if they can't be resolved at the time of the copy (e.g. you removed the volume that a file is linked to or deleted the link destination file).

_________________
X1000 with 2GB memory & OS4.1FE

@Xenic

Quote:

You should be aware that most copy programs (C:Copy Dopus4 etc.) will copy the file and not the link. If you back up directories/partitions or move directories you will probably lose the links unless you use drag-n-drop with ASyncWB. ASyncWB seems to copy "hard" links as "soft" links, but they remain links and not copies of the file that was linked to. Even ASyncWB won't copy links if they can't be resolved at the time of the copy (e.g. you removed the volume that a file is linked to or deleted the link destination file).

What is the difference between a hardlink, and a softlink?

_________________
Peter Swallow.
A1XEG3-800 [IBM 750FX PowerPC], running OS4.1FE, using ac97 onboard sound.

"There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

@thomas & Xenic

Indeed, SFS requires the keyword 'SOFT'. problem solved.

Thanks.

OldFart

_________________
Life is a waste of time.
Time is a waste of life.
Get wasted all the time
and you'll have the time of your life!

@OldFart

Quote:

OldFart wrote: @thomas & Xenic Indeed, SFS requires the keyword 'SOFT'. problem solved.

A link between partitions is always a soft link, so there it didn't require the SOFT keyword explicitly. But when you try to make a link within the same volume, a hard link is the default (but isn't supported by e.g. SFS, hence the error in that case, which you avoid by explicitly requesting a SOFT link).

Best regards,

Niels

@Swoop

Quote:

Swoop wrote: What is the difference between a hardlink, and a softlink?

A hardlink is when two different filenames (directory entries) point to the same set of "content" blocks on the disk. In Unix, they have a similar thing involving the socalled inodes, but the two concepts are not compatible, which is why our hardlinks are regarded as an "Amiga speciality".

A softlink is more like its Unix counterpart; it is a sort of alias where you create a directory entry of one name which is really a special sort of file containing (as text) the (path and) name of the "real" file. Since it can point with a relative or an absolute path, it can also work across partitions, whereas the hardlink has to point to blocks within its own filesystem, i.e. volume.

Best regards,

Niels

@nbache

Quote:

nbache wrote: A hardlink is when two different filenames (directory entries) point to the same set of "content" blocks on the disk. In Unix, they have a similar thing involving the socalled inodes, but the two concepts are not compatible, which is why our hardlinks are regarded as an "Amiga speciality".

What's the difference between Amiga and Unix hard links? They seem like fundamentally the same concept to me.

@ncafferkey

Quote:

What's the difference between Amiga and Unix hard links? They seem like fundamentally the same concept to me.

To me too. One file with two or more names inside file table. You have to delete all names to wipe the file completely.

_________________

"the expression, 'atonal music,' is most unfortunate--it is on a par with calling flying 'the art of not falling,' or swimming 'the art of not drowning.'. A. Schoenberg

@jack
The fundamental difference is we don't have inodes. And we should probably count that as a blessing in many other contexts, but precisely in the matter of hardlinks they are really useful. Simpy put, a filename directory entry has a pointer to an inode, and the inode points to the actual file data. So another filename can point to the same inode and thus to the same file. You can "delete" (rm) one of them, and the other one will be just as valid, no matter which one was created first. If a program has a lock on the file, it has it on the inode, so you can then rm both filenames, and the program will still access the file, until it closes it. At that point only, the actual file and inode is removed.

BTW, that trick also works for a simpe file with just one name; in a way, you could say that on Unix all files have a hardlink from their name to their inode, and some have more than one.

I'm not qualified to explain exactly how our filesystem(s) and their implementation of directory blocks and files etc. make our hardlinks almost quite, but not entirely unlike the Unix ones. Hopefully someone else can bestow us with some deeper enlightenment.


Best regards,

Niels

Last edited by nbache on 07-Jan-2009 at 11:53 PM.
Last edited by nbache on 07-Jan-2009 at 11:50 PM.

@Swoop

A practical difference is that if you make a hard link from 'foo' to 'bar' then rename 'bar' to 'bash' then 'foo' will point to 'bash'

But with a soft link from 'foo2' to 'bar' when you rename 'bar' to 'bash' then 'foo2' still points to 'bar' not to bash.

makelink from foo to bar
5.RAM Disk:test> makelink soft from foo2 to bar
5.RAM Disk:test> rename bar bash
5.RAM Disk:test> list
bash                              5 ----rwed Today     00:11:27
foo2                           Link ----rwed Today     00:12:02
> bar
foo                               5 ----rwed Today     00:11:27
> bash
2 files - 10 bytes - 1 unresolved softlink - 6 blocks used
5.RAM Disk:test>

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad