Anything specific to keep in mind restoring from rsync ?
bourne.identity at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 25 12:08:57 UTC 2017
On 08/25/17 16:18, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:58:05 +0000, Manish Jain wrote:
>> My /rescue indeed now has all files therein as separate files (unique
>> inodes). If the system has any more hard links, then my box would be
>> hosting them as separate files.
>> Is it okay if I keep using this box as-is-now (no hard links) ? The box
>> runs fantastically well.
> It should be no problem. When you do a system update, files
> get overwritten (unlinked) and re-instantiated, so the original
> hardlinks should be back in place.
> The key idea behind hardlinks will of course still work. A
> program can decide upon the value of argv, which is the
> name it is called by. For example, the programs in /rescue
> behave totally different depending on that name, even though
> it is _the same_ program whenever you execute it. This
> mechanism does not change when they are individual binaries.
> For example, I have a script in ~/bin with several symlinks
> pointing to it, and depending on the name, the script's
> behaviour changes. It's a "mass image converter" conv_, and
> it is called conv_png2jpg, conv_dicom2jpg, conv_gif2png and
> so on, and whenever I need another conv_<from>2<to>, I just
> add a new symlink. The same would work with hardlinks. A sh
> shell script can use `basename $0` for this decision.
Thanks, Poly. My own feeling in this regard is pretty much same as yours
- 'unlinked' files should behave the same as before.
As for your symlinks, Linux used to - and perhaps still does - ship sh
(->bash) and vi (->vim).
More information about the freebsd-questions