|
bind mounting doesn't do what Time Machine wants, either potentially every directory on the filesystem has multiple hard links
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
you can just do cp -al for local poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
hard-linking is messy and hard to keep tabs on though. just use btrfs subvolume snapshots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
time machine uses hard links you dunce
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
durr hard links are hard just use a beta file system it's easy Linux #1
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
lol yea lemme trust apple's godawful filesystems
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:lol yea lemme trust apple's godawful filesystems lmao, just lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
the next question is does rsync support directory hard links on filesystems that support them
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:lol yea lemme trust apple's godawful filesystems
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Tankakern posted:btrfs supports reflinking lol btrfs is still under heavy development
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:lol yea lemme trust apple's godawful filesystems I'm talking about Linux you imbecile R > C > P
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
you should only use gods own file system, fat16
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
pram posted:time machine uses hard links you dunce i had always assumed time machine was smarter than that, because holy lol hardlinks are hosed up on hfs+ quote:To keep track of hard links, HFS+ creates a separate file for each hard link inside a hidden directory at the root level of the volume. Hidden directories are kind of creepy to begin with, but the real scare comes when you remember that Time Machine is implemented using hard links to avoid unnecessary data duplication. quote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
linux has a working filesystem and i would say that is a pretty cool feature for a desktop
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
how do hard linked directories work, anyway? if I unlink an entry in that directory, does the directory COW? presumably you can unlink non-empty directories with a link count greater than one, otherwise you'd never be able to remove them. how does .. work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
it just works until one day it just breaks and you have no idea what the gently caress is going wrong with your computer and you're desperately trying to get your backups to work but keep the most important files on another backup
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:i had always assumed time machine was smarter than that, because holy lol hardlinks are hosed up on hfs+ hfs+ was originally designed for classic macos which does not natively have hardlinks and therefore hfs+ doesnt either classic mac had a different thing called an alias which was mostly like a unix soft link (i.e. userspace can tell it's actually a pointer, not the original) but with the most important feature of a hardlink, which is not breaking when you move/rename the original. afaik os x still supports aliases its silly to get all pointy-fingery about the weird implementation of hardlinks in hfs+ because the only reason unix-semantics hardlinking is still a thing today is backcompat with this one weird trick made possible by a quirky and terrible 45 year old fs. "oh hey we can have multiple dirents pointing to the same inode" *proceeds to write a shitload of hacks that will break horribly if this property ever goes away* (i mean srsly idg why people hate on hfs+ so much, at least it has a loving b*tree directory. has linux even settled on a post-extN fs which has non caveman data structures? i noticed that el7 is defaulting to xfs now, a ringing endorsement of filesystems designed by the linux community)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
please never stop john siracusa-ing the biggest thing i miss from his megareviews was his rambling about hfs+
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:please never stop john siracusa-ing well im a bad siracusa because i think hfs+ is kinda okay, rather than a disaster which needs to be cleansed with fire speaking of siracusa i heard him on a podcast and he talks like he writes, only its way more insufferable because hes constantly interrupting and talking over everyone else with a rapidfire jumble of  and he reiterates every point like a million times
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:
holy poo poo  are you serious this is the most hosed up impl of a backup system i've ever witnessed
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
gluster does something similar with a mysterious hidden directory containing mapping to the brick files
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
pram posted:gluster  Clever project just don't upgrade ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
posting in the relative merit of technical details of backup system implementation approaches discussion thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:hfs+ was originally designed for classic macos which does not natively have hardlinks and therefore hfs+ doesnt either ext4 has only had btrees for about the last seven years or so Post extfs all of them do. I'm not super keen on btrfs sorry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:its silly to get all pointy-fingery about the weird implementation of hardlinks in hfs+ because the only reason unix-semantics hardlinking is still a thing today is backcompat with this one weird trick made possible by a quirky and terrible 45 year old fs. "oh hey we can have multiple dirents pointing to the same inode" *proceeds to write a shitload of hacks that will break horribly if this property ever goes away* hacks such as time machine, the worlds most advanced incremental backup system? like if hard links are inherently incompatible with apples fs design, why didn't they invent a fs feature that could be implemented without terrible hacks and then base their backup system on that instead
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Lysidas posted:as loving terrible as it is that ubuntu breaks kernel ABI compatibility, eh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
y'all are missing the point that time machine is the best backup solution for home users, despite all the hacky poo poo. it just works (somehow)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Ericadia posted:y'all are missing the point that time machine is the best backup solution for home users, despite all the hacky poo poo. it just works (somehow) time machine is really cool hfs+ is really terrible
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Phobeste posted:eh? ubuntu doesn't guarantee abi compatibility when they patch their kernels a driver that worked fine in one ubuntu 12.04 might be broken in a different ubuntu 12.04 installation, depending on which patches and packages they have installed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Ericadia posted:y'all are missing the point that time machine is the best backup solution for home users, despite all the hacky poo poo. it just works (somehow) this is the linux thread, it's kind of taken for granted that minor filesystem implementation details are more important than usability
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:this is the linux thread, it's kind of taken for granted that minor filesystem implementation details are more important than usability does it really matter how "usable" the gui was after the lovely filesystem implementation corrupts all your backups
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
http://gfycat.com/SlimyDistinctAntlion
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
lol ubuntu
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:hacks such as time machine, the worlds most advanced incremental backup system? because mid 2000s apple was not yet floating on iphone money and had a lot of very smart dudes who could see "oh hey we can actually pull this off with this hack and users will mostly not notice the hack and it will be a great feature and we wont have to pay 3x the cost and schedule to design a brand new fs" (brand new because doing time machine poo poo cleanly is probably further than you can stretch hfs+, its only kinda okay not great remember)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:because mid 2000s apple was not yet floating on iphone money and had a lot of very smart dudes who could see "oh hey we can actually pull this off with this hack and users will mostly not notice the hack and it will be a great feature and we wont have to pay 3x the cost and schedule to design a brand new fs" at the time, apple already had two other filesystems in osx: ufs and zfs. both are unambiguously less broken than hfs+. they continued to ship hfs+ instead. apple doesn't care about how lovely their unix is. even when it could hurt users. being a good unix isn't even on the radar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:at the time, apple already had two other filesystems in osx: ufs and zfs. both are unambiguously less broken than hfs+. they continued to ship hfs+ instead. lol that you think this ufs: caveman fs zfs: was unambiguously more broken than hfs+ on mac os x because the port wasn't done. they were investing in it up till the time when the project had to be killed because sun got oracled. larry and stebe may well have been best buds but they couldnt figure out how to do business together (also it was never quite clear how apple planned to deploy zfs on mac without inflicting sysadminning on mac users, unless the plan was to just have it as an option for propeller heads and not as the default boot drive os)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
if ufs is cavemen banging rocks together, hfs+ is botulism. a prokaryote that kills yo files
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:apple doesn't care about how lovely their unix is. even when it could hurt users. being a good unix isn't even on the radar. being 'good' isnt a concern when youre already the best/most advanced
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
pram posted:being 'good' isnt a concern when youre already the best/most advanced really? you're saying it'sok if apple just rests on their laurels and doesn#'t try to improve until someone else catches up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Soricidus posted:really? you're saying it'sok if apple just rests on their laurels and doesn#'t try to improve until someone else catches up? i don't think pram was being entirely serious
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:10
|
|